difference between research and case study

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 2 April 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.

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

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

Definition and Introduction

Case analysis is a problem-based teaching and learning method that involves critically analyzing complex scenarios within an organizational setting for the purpose of placing the student in a “real world” situation and applying reflection and critical thinking skills to contemplate appropriate solutions, decisions, or recommended courses of action. It is considered a more effective teaching technique than in-class role playing or simulation activities. The analytical process is often guided by questions provided by the instructor that ask students to contemplate relationships between the facts and critical incidents described in the case.

Cases generally include both descriptive and statistical elements and rely on students applying abductive reasoning to develop and argue for preferred or best outcomes [i.e., case scenarios rarely have a single correct or perfect answer based on the evidence provided]. Rather than emphasizing theories or concepts, case analysis assignments emphasize building a bridge of relevancy between abstract thinking and practical application and, by so doing, teaches the value of both within a specific area of professional practice.

Given this, the purpose of a case analysis paper is to present a structured and logically organized format for analyzing the case situation. It can be assigned to students individually or as a small group assignment and it may include an in-class presentation component. Case analysis is predominately taught in economics and business-related courses, but it is also a method of teaching and learning found in other applied social sciences disciplines, such as, social work, public relations, education, journalism, and public administration.

Ellet, William. The Case Study Handbook: A Student's Guide . Revised Edition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2018; Christoph Rasche and Achim Seisreiner. Guidelines for Business Case Analysis . University of Potsdam; Writing a Case Analysis . Writing Center, Baruch College; Volpe, Guglielmo. "Case Teaching in Economics: History, Practice and Evidence." Cogent Economics and Finance 3 (December 2015). doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2015.1120977.

How to Approach Writing a Case Analysis Paper

The organization and structure of a case analysis paper can vary depending on the organizational setting, the situation, and how your professor wants you to approach the assignment. Nevertheless, preparing to write a case analysis paper involves several important steps. As Hawes notes, a case analysis assignment “...is useful in developing the ability to get to the heart of a problem, analyze it thoroughly, and to indicate the appropriate solution as well as how it should be implemented” [p.48]. This statement encapsulates how you should approach preparing to write a case analysis paper.

Before you begin to write your paper, consider the following analytical procedures:

• Review the case to get an overview of the situation . A case can be only a few pages in length, however, it is most often very lengthy and contains a significant amount of detailed background information and statistics, with multilayered descriptions of the scenario, the roles and behaviors of various stakeholder groups, and situational events. Therefore, a quick reading of the case will help you gain an overall sense of the situation and illuminate the types of issues and problems that you will need to address in your paper. If your professor has provided questions intended to help frame your analysis, use them to guide your initial reading of the case.
• Read the case thoroughly . After gaining a general overview of the case, carefully read the content again with the purpose of understanding key circumstances, events, and behaviors among stakeholder groups. Look for information or data that appears contradictory, extraneous, or misleading. At this point, you should be taking notes as you read because this will help you develop a general outline of your paper. The aim is to obtain a complete understanding of the situation so that you can begin contemplating tentative answers to any questions your professor has provided or, if they have not provided, developing answers to your own questions about the case scenario and its connection to the course readings,lectures, and class discussions.
• Determine key stakeholder groups, issues, and events and the relationships they all have to each other . As you analyze the content, pay particular attention to identifying individuals, groups, or organizations described in the case and identify evidence of any problems or issues of concern that impact the situation in a negative way. Other things to look for include identifying any assumptions being made by or about each stakeholder, potential biased explanations or actions, explicit demands or ultimatums , and the underlying concerns that motivate these behaviors among stakeholders. The goal at this stage is to develop a comprehensive understanding of the situational and behavioral dynamics of the case and the explicit and implicit consequences of each of these actions.
• Identify the core problems . The next step in most case analysis assignments is to discern what the core [i.e., most damaging, detrimental, injurious] problems are within the organizational setting and to determine their implications. The purpose at this stage of preparing to write your analysis paper is to distinguish between the symptoms of core problems and the core problems themselves and to decide which of these must be addressed immediately and which problems do not appear critical but may escalate over time. Identify evidence from the case to support your decisions by determining what information or data is essential to addressing the core problems and what information is not relevant or is misleading.
• Explore alternative solutions . As noted, case analysis scenarios rarely have only one correct answer. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind that the process of analyzing the case and diagnosing core problems, while based on evidence, is a subjective process open to various avenues of interpretation. This means that you must consider alternative solutions or courses of action by critically examining strengths and weaknesses, risk factors, and the differences between short and long-term solutions. For each possible solution or course of action, consider the consequences they may have related to their implementation and how these recommendations might lead to new problems. Also, consider thinking about your recommended solutions or courses of action in relation to issues of fairness, equity, and inclusion.
• Decide on a final set of recommendations . The last stage in preparing to write a case analysis paper is to assert an opinion or viewpoint about the recommendations needed to help resolve the core problems as you see them and to make a persuasive argument for supporting this point of view. Prepare a clear rationale for your recommendations based on examining each element of your analysis. Anticipate possible obstacles that could derail their implementation. Consider any counter-arguments that could be made concerning the validity of your recommended actions. Finally, describe a set of criteria and measurable indicators that could be applied to evaluating the effectiveness of your implementation plan.

Use these steps as the framework for writing your paper. Remember that the more detailed you are in taking notes as you critically examine each element of the case, the more information you will have to draw from when you begin to write. This will save you time.

NOTE : If the process of preparing to write a case analysis paper is assigned as a student group project, consider having each member of the group analyze a specific element of the case, including drafting answers to the corresponding questions used by your professor to frame the analysis. This will help make the analytical process more efficient and ensure that the distribution of work is equitable. This can also facilitate who is responsible for drafting each part of the final case analysis paper and, if applicable, the in-class presentation.

Framework for Case Analysis . College of Management. University of Massachusetts; Hawes, Jon M. "Teaching is Not Telling: The Case Method as a Form of Interactive Learning." Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education 5 (Winter 2004): 47-54; Rasche, Christoph and Achim Seisreiner. Guidelines for Business Case Analysis . University of Potsdam; Writing a Case Study Analysis . University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center; Van Ness, Raymond K. A Guide to Case Analysis . School of Business. State University of New York, Albany; Writing a Case Analysis . Business School, University of New South Wales.

Structure and Writing Style

A case analysis paper should be detailed, concise, persuasive, clearly written, and professional in tone and in the use of language . As with other forms of college-level academic writing, declarative statements that convey information, provide a fact, or offer an explanation or any recommended courses of action should be based on evidence. If allowed by your professor, any external sources used to support your analysis, such as course readings, should be properly cited under a list of references. The organization and structure of case analysis papers can vary depending on your professor’s preferred format, but its structure generally follows the steps used for analyzing the case.

Introduction

The introduction should provide a succinct but thorough descriptive overview of the main facts, issues, and core problems of the case . The introduction should also include a brief summary of the most relevant details about the situation and organizational setting. This includes defining the theoretical framework or conceptual model on which any questions were used to frame your analysis.

Following the rules of most college-level research papers, the introduction should then inform the reader how the paper will be organized. This includes describing the major sections of the paper and the order in which they will be presented. Unless you are told to do so by your professor, you do not need to preview your final recommendations in the introduction. U nlike most college-level research papers , the introduction does not include a statement about the significance of your findings because a case analysis assignment does not involve contributing new knowledge about a research problem.

Background Analysis

Background analysis can vary depending on any guiding questions provided by your professor and the underlying concept or theory that the case is based upon. In general, however, this section of your paper should focus on:

• Providing an overarching analysis of problems identified from the case scenario, including identifying events that stakeholders find challenging or troublesome,
• Identifying assumptions made by each stakeholder and any apparent biases they may exhibit,
• Describing any demands or claims made by or forced upon key stakeholders, and
• Highlighting any issues of concern or complaints expressed by stakeholders in response to those demands or claims.

These aspects of the case are often in the form of behavioral responses expressed by individuals or groups within the organizational setting. However, note that problems in a case situation can also be reflected in data [or the lack thereof] and in the decision-making, operational, cultural, or institutional structure of the organization. Additionally, demands or claims can be either internal and external to the organization [e.g., a case analysis involving a president considering arms sales to Saudi Arabia could include managing internal demands from White House advisors as well as demands from members of Congress].

Throughout this section, present all relevant evidence from the case that supports your analysis. Do not simply claim there is a problem, an assumption, a demand, or a concern; tell the reader what part of the case informed how you identified these background elements.

Identification of Problems

In most case analysis assignments, there are problems, and then there are problems . Each problem can reflect a multitude of underlying symptoms that are detrimental to the interests of the organization. The purpose of identifying problems is to teach students how to differentiate between problems that vary in severity, impact, and relative importance. Given this, problems can be described in three general forms: those that must be addressed immediately, those that should be addressed but the impact is not severe, and those that do not require immediate attention and can be set aside for the time being.

All of the problems you identify from the case should be identified in this section of your paper, with a description based on evidence explaining the problem variances. If the assignment asks you to conduct research to further support your assessment of the problems, include this in your explanation. Remember to cite those sources in a list of references. Use specific evidence from the case and apply appropriate concepts, theories, and models discussed in class or in relevant course readings to highlight and explain the key problems [or problem] that you believe must be solved immediately and describe the underlying symptoms and why they are so critical.

Alternative Solutions

This section is where you provide specific, realistic, and evidence-based solutions to the problems you have identified and make recommendations about how to alleviate the underlying symptomatic conditions impacting the organizational setting. For each solution, you must explain why it was chosen and provide clear evidence to support your reasoning. This can include, for example, course readings and class discussions as well as research resources, such as, books, journal articles, research reports, or government documents. In some cases, your professor may encourage you to include personal, anecdotal experiences as evidence to support why you chose a particular solution or set of solutions. Using anecdotal evidence helps promote reflective thinking about the process of determining what qualifies as a core problem and relevant solution .

Throughout this part of the paper, keep in mind the entire array of problems that must be addressed and describe in detail the solutions that might be implemented to resolve these problems.

Recommended Courses of Action

In some case analysis assignments, your professor may ask you to combine the alternative solutions section with your recommended courses of action. However, it is important to know the difference between the two. A solution refers to the answer to a problem. A course of action refers to a procedure or deliberate sequence of activities adopted to proactively confront a situation, often in the context of accomplishing a goal. In this context, proposed courses of action are based on your analysis of alternative solutions. Your description and justification for pursuing each course of action should represent the overall plan for implementing your recommendations.

For each course of action, you need to explain the rationale for your recommendation in a way that confronts challenges, explains risks, and anticipates any counter-arguments from stakeholders. Do this by considering the strengths and weaknesses of each course of action framed in relation to how the action is expected to resolve the core problems presented, the possible ways the action may affect remaining problems, and how the recommended action will be perceived by each stakeholder.

In addition, you should describe the criteria needed to measure how well the implementation of these actions is working and explain which individuals or groups are responsible for ensuring your recommendations are successful. In addition, always consider the law of unintended consequences. Outline difficulties that may arise in implementing each course of action and describe how implementing the proposed courses of action [either individually or collectively] may lead to new problems [both large and small].

Throughout this section, you must consider the costs and benefits of recommending your courses of action in relation to uncertainties or missing information and the negative consequences of success.

The conclusion should be brief and introspective. Unlike a research paper, the conclusion in a case analysis paper does not include a summary of key findings and their significance, a statement about how the study contributed to existing knowledge, or indicate opportunities for future research.

Begin by synthesizing the core problems presented in the case and the relevance of your recommended solutions. This can include an explanation of what you have learned about the case in the context of your answers to the questions provided by your professor. The conclusion is also where you link what you learned from analyzing the case with the course readings or class discussions. This can further demonstrate your understanding of the relationships between the practical case situation and the theoretical and abstract content of assigned readings and other course content.

Problems to Avoid

The literature on case analysis assignments often includes examples of difficulties students have with applying methods of critical analysis and effectively reporting the results of their assessment of the situation. A common reason cited by scholars is that the application of this type of teaching and learning method is limited to applied fields of social and behavioral sciences and, as a result, writing a case analysis paper can be unfamiliar to most students entering college.

After you have drafted your paper, proofread the narrative flow and revise any of these common errors:

• Unnecessary detail in the background section . The background section should highlight the essential elements of the case based on your analysis. Focus on summarizing the facts and highlighting the key factors that become relevant in the other sections of the paper by eliminating any unnecessary information.
• Analysis relies too much on opinion . Your analysis is interpretive, but the narrative must be connected clearly to evidence from the case and any models and theories discussed in class or in course readings. Any positions or arguments you make should be supported by evidence.
• Analysis does not focus on the most important elements of the case . Your paper should provide a thorough overview of the case. However, the analysis should focus on providing evidence about what you identify are the key events, stakeholders, issues, and problems. Emphasize what you identify as the most critical aspects of the case to be developed throughout your analysis. Be thorough but succinct.
• Writing is too descriptive . A paper with too much descriptive information detracts from your analysis of the complexities of the case situation. Questions about what happened, where, when, and by whom should only be included as essential information leading to your examination of questions related to why, how, and for what purpose.
• Inadequate definition of a core problem and associated symptoms . A common error found in case analysis papers is recommending a solution or course of action without adequately defining or demonstrating that you understand the problem. Make sure you have clearly described the problem and its impact and scope within the organizational setting. Ensure that you have adequately described the root causes w hen describing the symptoms of the problem.
• Recommendations lack specificity . Identify any use of vague statements and indeterminate terminology, such as, “A particular experience” or “a large increase to the budget.” These statements cannot be measured and, as a result, there is no way to evaluate their successful implementation. Provide specific data and use direct language in describing recommended actions.
• Unrealistic, exaggerated, or unattainable recommendations . Review your recommendations to ensure that they are based on the situational facts of the case. Your recommended solutions and courses of action must be based on realistic assumptions and fit within the constraints of the situation. Also note that the case scenario has already happened, therefore, any speculation or arguments about what could have occurred if the circumstances were different should be revised or eliminated.

Bee, Lian Song et al. "Business Students' Perspectives on Case Method Coaching for Problem-Based Learning: Impacts on Student Engagement and Learning Performance in Higher Education." Education & Training 64 (2022): 416-432; The Case Analysis . Fred Meijer Center for Writing and Michigan Authors. Grand Valley State University; Georgallis, Panikos and Kayleigh Bruijn. "Sustainability Teaching using Case-Based Debates." Journal of International Education in Business 15 (2022): 147-163; Hawes, Jon M. "Teaching is Not Telling: The Case Method as a Form of Interactive Learning." Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education 5 (Winter 2004): 47-54; Georgallis, Panikos, and Kayleigh Bruijn. "Sustainability Teaching Using Case-based Debates." Journal of International Education in Business 15 (2022): 147-163; .Dean,  Kathy Lund and Charles J. Fornaciari. "How to Create and Use Experiential Case-Based Exercises in a Management Classroom." Journal of Management Education 26 (October 2002): 586-603; Klebba, Joanne M. and Janet G. Hamilton. "Structured Case Analysis: Developing Critical Thinking Skills in a Marketing Case Course." Journal of Marketing Education 29 (August 2007): 132-137, 139; Klein, Norman. "The Case Discussion Method Revisited: Some Questions about Student Skills." Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal 6 (November 1981): 30-32; Mukherjee, Arup. "Effective Use of In-Class Mini Case Analysis for Discovery Learning in an Undergraduate MIS Course." The Journal of Computer Information Systems 40 (Spring 2000): 15-23; Pessoa, Silviaet al. "Scaffolding the Case Analysis in an Organizational Behavior Course: Making Analytical Language Explicit." Journal of Management Education 46 (2022): 226-251: Ramsey, V. J. and L. D. Dodge. "Case Analysis: A Structured Approach." Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal 6 (November 1981): 27-29; Schweitzer, Karen. "How to Write and Format a Business Case Study." ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/how-to-write-and-format-a-business-case-study-466324 (accessed December 5, 2022); Reddy, C. D. "Teaching Research Methodology: Everything's a Case." Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 18 (December 2020): 178-188; Volpe, Guglielmo. "Case Teaching in Economics: History, Practice and Evidence." Cogent Economics and Finance 3 (December 2015). doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2015.1120977.

Writing Tip

Ca se Study and Case Analysis Are Not the Same!

Confusion often exists between what it means to write a paper that uses a case study research design and writing a paper that analyzes a case; they are two different types of approaches to learning in the social and behavioral sciences. Professors as well as educational researchers contribute to this confusion because they often use the term "case study" when describing the subject of analysis for a case analysis paper. But you are not studying a case for the purpose of generating a comprehensive, multi-faceted understanding of a research problem. R ather, you are critically analyzing a specific scenario to argue logically for recommended solutions and courses of action that lead to optimal outcomes applicable to professional practice.

To avoid any confusion, here are twelve characteristics that delineate the differences between writing a paper using the case study research method and writing a case analysis paper:

• Case study is a method of in-depth research and rigorous inquiry ; case analysis is a reliable method of teaching and learning . A case study is a modality of research that investigates a phenomenon for the purpose of creating new knowledge, solving a problem, or testing a hypothesis using empirical evidence derived from the case being studied. Often, the results are used to generalize about a larger population or within a wider context. The writing adheres to the traditional standards of a scholarly research study. A case analysis is a pedagogical tool used to teach students how to reflect and think critically about a practical, real-life problem in an organizational setting.
• The researcher is responsible for identifying the case to study; a case analysis is assigned by your professor . As the researcher, you choose the case study to investigate in support of obtaining new knowledge and understanding about the research problem. The case in a case analysis assignment is almost always provided, and sometimes written, by your professor and either given to every student in class to analyze individually or to a small group of students, or students select a case to analyze from a predetermined list.
• A case study is indeterminate and boundless; a case analysis is predetermined and confined . A case study can be almost anything [see item 9 below] as long as it relates directly to examining the research problem. This relationship is the only limit to what a researcher can choose as the subject of their case study. The content of a case analysis is determined by your professor and its parameters are well-defined and limited to elucidating insights of practical value applied to practice.
• Case study is fact-based and describes actual events or situations; case analysis can be entirely fictional or adapted from an actual situation . The entire content of a case study must be grounded in reality to be a valid subject of investigation in an empirical research study. A case analysis only needs to set the stage for critically examining a situation in practice and, therefore, can be entirely fictional or adapted, all or in-part, from an actual situation.
• Research using a case study method must adhere to principles of intellectual honesty and academic integrity; a case analysis scenario can include misleading or false information . A case study paper must report research objectively and factually to ensure that any findings are understood to be logically correct and trustworthy. A case analysis scenario may include misleading or false information intended to deliberately distract from the central issues of the case. The purpose is to teach students how to sort through conflicting or useless information in order to come up with the preferred solution. Any use of misleading or false information in academic research is considered unethical.
• Case study is linked to a research problem; case analysis is linked to a practical situation or scenario . In the social sciences, the subject of an investigation is most often framed as a problem that must be researched in order to generate new knowledge leading to a solution. Case analysis narratives are grounded in real life scenarios for the purpose of examining the realities of decision-making behavior and processes within organizational settings. A case analysis assignments include a problem or set of problems to be analyzed. However, the goal is centered around the act of identifying and evaluating courses of action leading to best possible outcomes.
• The purpose of a case study is to create new knowledge through research; the purpose of a case analysis is to teach new understanding . Case studies are a choice of methodological design intended to create new knowledge about resolving a research problem. A case analysis is a mode of teaching and learning intended to create new understanding and an awareness of uncertainty applied to practice through acts of critical thinking and reflection.
• A case study seeks to identify the best possible solution to a research problem; case analysis can have an indeterminate set of solutions or outcomes . Your role in studying a case is to discover the most logical, evidence-based ways to address a research problem. A case analysis assignment rarely has a single correct answer because one of the goals is to force students to confront the real life dynamics of uncertainly, ambiguity, and missing or conflicting information within professional practice. Under these conditions, a perfect outcome or solution almost never exists.
• Case study is unbounded and relies on gathering external information; case analysis is a self-contained subject of analysis . The scope of a case study chosen as a method of research is bounded. However, the researcher is free to gather whatever information and data is necessary to investigate its relevance to understanding the research problem. For a case analysis assignment, your professor will often ask you to examine solutions or recommended courses of action based solely on facts and information from the case.
• Case study can be a person, place, object, issue, event, condition, or phenomenon; a case analysis is a carefully constructed synopsis of events, situations, and behaviors . The research problem dictates the type of case being studied and, therefore, the design can encompass almost anything tangible as long as it fulfills the objective of generating new knowledge and understanding. A case analysis is in the form of a narrative containing descriptions of facts, situations, processes, rules, and behaviors within a particular setting and under a specific set of circumstances.
• Case study can represent an open-ended subject of inquiry; a case analysis is a narrative about something that has happened in the past . A case study is not restricted by time and can encompass an event or issue with no temporal limit or end. For example, the current war in Ukraine can be used as a case study of how medical personnel help civilians during a large military conflict, even though circumstances around this event are still evolving. A case analysis can be used to elicit critical thinking about current or future situations in practice, but the case itself is a narrative about something finite and that has taken place in the past.
• Multiple case studies can be used in a research study; case analysis involves examining a single scenario . Case study research can use two or more cases to examine a problem, often for the purpose of conducting a comparative investigation intended to discover hidden relationships, document emerging trends, or determine variations among different examples. A case analysis assignment typically describes a stand-alone, self-contained situation and any comparisons among cases are conducted during in-class discussions and/or student presentations.

The Case Analysis . Fred Meijer Center for Writing and Michigan Authors. Grand Valley State University; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Ramsey, V. J. and L. D. Dodge. "Case Analysis: A Structured Approach." Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal 6 (November 1981): 27-29; Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods . 6th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2017; Crowe, Sarah et al. “The Case Study Approach.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 11 (2011):  doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-100; Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods . 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing; 1994.

• << Previous: Reviewing Collected Works
• Next: Writing a Case Study >>
• Last Updated: Mar 6, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

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 ]

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

Eduinput- Online tutoring platform for Math, chemistry, Biology Physics

An online learning platform for Mcat, JEE, NEET and UPSC students

Difference Between Case Study and Research

Table of Contents

Key Difference

Case studies and research are both valuable tools in academic and professional fields but serve different purposes and methodologies. A case study is a detailed examination of a specific instance, situation, or individual, often used to explore complex issues in real-world settings. It provides in-depth insights into a particular subject.

Research, on the other hand, is a broader term that encompasses the systematic investigation and study of materials and sources to establish facts and reach new conclusions. It often involves hypothesis testing, data collection, and analysis across a wider scope.

Comparative Analysis

• Case Study : Concentrates on a specific instance or example.
• Research : Broader inquiry, exploring a general or specific topic.
• Case Study : Qualitative, narrative analysis, in-depth investigation.
• Research : Can be qualitative or quantitative, involves systematic data collection and analysis.
• Case Study : To provide a detailed understanding, and explore the nuances of a single case.
• Research : To discover, interpret, or revise facts, theories, and applications.
• Case Study : Findings are often not generalizable.
• Research : Aims for findings that can be generalized or applied broadly.
• Case Study : Used in business, psychology, social sciences for practical insights.
• Research : Applied across all scientific and scholarly disciplines.

Table Summary of Case Study vs Research

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Get updates about new courses

NCERT solutions

9th Class 10th Class 11 Class 12 Class

Join the groups below to get updates.

2.2 Approaches to Research

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Describe the different research methods used by psychologists
• Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of case studies, naturalistic observation, surveys, and archival research
• Compare longitudinal and cross-sectional approaches to research
• Compare and contrast correlation and causation

There are many research methods available to psychologists in their efforts to understand, describe, and explain behavior and the cognitive and biological processes that underlie it. Some methods rely on observational techniques. Other approaches involve interactions between the researcher and the individuals who are being studied—ranging from a series of simple questions to extensive, in-depth interviews—to well-controlled experiments.

Each of these research methods has unique strengths and weaknesses, and each method may only be appropriate for certain types of research questions. For example, studies that rely primarily on observation produce incredible amounts of information, but the ability to apply this information to the larger population is somewhat limited because of small sample sizes. Survey research, on the other hand, allows researchers to easily collect data from relatively large samples. While this allows for results to be generalized to the larger population more easily, the information that can be collected on any given survey is somewhat limited and subject to problems associated with any type of self-reported data. Some researchers conduct archival research by using existing records. While this can be a fairly inexpensive way to collect data that can provide insight into a number of research questions, researchers using this approach have no control on how or what kind of data was collected. All of the methods described thus far are correlational in nature. This means that researchers can speak to important relationships that might exist between two or more variables of interest. However, correlational data cannot be used to make claims about cause-and-effect relationships.

Correlational research can find a relationship between two variables, but the only way a researcher can claim that the relationship between the variables is cause and effect is to perform an experiment. In experimental research, which will be discussed later in this chapter, there is a tremendous amount of control over variables of interest. While this is a powerful approach, experiments are often conducted in artificial settings. This calls into question the validity of experimental findings with regard to how they would apply in real-world settings. In addition, many of the questions that psychologists would like to answer cannot be pursued through experimental research because of ethical concerns.

Clinical or Case Studies

In 2011, the New York Times published a feature story on Krista and Tatiana Hogan, Canadian twin girls. These particular twins are unique because Krista and Tatiana are conjoined twins, connected at the head. There is evidence that the two girls are connected in a part of the brain called the thalamus, which is a major sensory relay center. Most incoming sensory information is sent through the thalamus before reaching higher regions of the cerebral cortex for processing.

Link to Learning

Watch this CBC video about Krista's and Tatiana's lives to learn more.

The implications of this potential connection mean that it might be possible for one twin to experience the sensations of the other twin. For instance, if Krista is watching a particularly funny television program, Tatiana might smile or laugh even if she is not watching the program. This particular possibility has piqued the interest of many neuroscientists who seek to understand how the brain uses sensory information.

These twins represent an enormous resource in the study of the brain, and since their condition is very rare, it is likely that as long as their family agrees, scientists will follow these girls very closely throughout their lives to gain as much information as possible (Dominus, 2011).

Over time, it has become clear that while Krista and Tatiana share some sensory experiences and motor control, they remain two distinct individuals, which provides invaluable insight for researchers interested in the mind and the brain (Egnor, 2017).

In observational research, scientists are conducting a clinical or case study when they focus on one person or just a few individuals. Indeed, some scientists spend their entire careers studying just 10–20 individuals. Why would they do this? Obviously, when they focus their attention on a very small number of people, they can gain a precious amount of insight into those cases. The richness of information that is collected in clinical or case studies is unmatched by any other single research method. This allows the researcher to have a very deep understanding of the individuals and the particular phenomenon being studied.

If clinical or case studies provide so much information, why are they not more frequent among researchers? As it turns out, the major benefit of this particular approach is also a weakness. As mentioned earlier, this approach is often used when studying individuals who are interesting to researchers because they have a rare characteristic. Therefore, the individuals who serve as the focus of case studies are not like most other people. If scientists ultimately want to explain all behavior, focusing attention on such a special group of people can make it difficult to generalize any observations to the larger population as a whole. Generalizing refers to the ability to apply the findings of a particular research project to larger segments of society. Again, case studies provide enormous amounts of information, but since the cases are so specific, the potential to apply what’s learned to the average person may be very limited.

Naturalistic Observation

If you want to understand how behavior occurs, one of the best ways to gain information is to simply observe the behavior in its natural context. However, people might change their behavior in unexpected ways if they know they are being observed. How do researchers obtain accurate information when people tend to hide their natural behavior? As an example, imagine that your professor asks everyone in your class to raise their hand if they always wash their hands after using the restroom. Chances are that almost everyone in the classroom will raise their hand, but do you think hand washing after every trip to the restroom is really that universal?

This is very similar to the phenomenon mentioned earlier in this chapter: many individuals do not feel comfortable answering a question honestly. But if we are committed to finding out the facts about hand washing, we have other options available to us.

Suppose we send a classmate into the restroom to actually watch whether everyone washes their hands after using the restroom. Will our observer blend into the restroom environment by wearing a white lab coat, sitting with a clipboard, and staring at the sinks? We want our researcher to be inconspicuous—perhaps standing at one of the sinks pretending to put in contact lenses while secretly recording the relevant information. This type of observational study is called naturalistic observation : observing behavior in its natural setting. To better understand peer exclusion, Suzanne Fanger collaborated with colleagues at the University of Texas to observe the behavior of preschool children on a playground. How did the observers remain inconspicuous over the duration of the study? They equipped a few of the children with wireless microphones (which the children quickly forgot about) and observed while taking notes from a distance. Also, the children in that particular preschool (a “laboratory preschool”) were accustomed to having observers on the playground (Fanger, Frankel, & Hazen, 2012).

It is critical that the observer be as unobtrusive and as inconspicuous as possible: when people know they are being watched, they are less likely to behave naturally. If you have any doubt about this, ask yourself how your driving behavior might differ in two situations: In the first situation, you are driving down a deserted highway during the middle of the day; in the second situation, you are being followed by a police car down the same deserted highway ( Figure 2.7 ).

It should be pointed out that naturalistic observation is not limited to research involving humans. Indeed, some of the best-known examples of naturalistic observation involve researchers going into the field to observe various kinds of animals in their own environments. As with human studies, the researchers maintain their distance and avoid interfering with the animal subjects so as not to influence their natural behaviors. Scientists have used this technique to study social hierarchies and interactions among animals ranging from ground squirrels to gorillas. The information provided by these studies is invaluable in understanding how those animals organize socially and communicate with one another. The anthropologist Jane Goodall , for example, spent nearly five decades observing the behavior of chimpanzees in Africa ( Figure 2.8 ). As an illustration of the types of concerns that a researcher might encounter in naturalistic observation, some scientists criticized Goodall for giving the chimps names instead of referring to them by numbers—using names was thought to undermine the emotional detachment required for the objectivity of the study (McKie, 2010).

The greatest benefit of naturalistic observation is the validity , or accuracy, of information collected unobtrusively in a natural setting. Having individuals behave as they normally would in a given situation means that we have a higher degree of ecological validity, or realism, than we might achieve with other research approaches. Therefore, our ability to generalize the findings of the research to real-world situations is enhanced. If done correctly, we need not worry about people or animals modifying their behavior simply because they are being observed. Sometimes, people may assume that reality programs give us a glimpse into authentic human behavior. However, the principle of inconspicuous observation is violated as reality stars are followed by camera crews and are interviewed on camera for personal confessionals. Given that environment, we must doubt how natural and realistic their behaviors are.

The major downside of naturalistic observation is that they are often difficult to set up and control. In our restroom study, what if you stood in the restroom all day prepared to record people’s hand washing behavior and no one came in? Or, what if you have been closely observing a troop of gorillas for weeks only to find that they migrated to a new place while you were sleeping in your tent? The benefit of realistic data comes at a cost. As a researcher you have no control of when (or if) you have behavior to observe. In addition, this type of observational research often requires significant investments of time, money, and a good dose of luck.

Sometimes studies involve structured observation. In these cases, people are observed while engaging in set, specific tasks. An excellent example of structured observation comes from Strange Situation by Mary Ainsworth (you will read more about this in the chapter on lifespan development). The Strange Situation is a procedure used to evaluate attachment styles that exist between an infant and caregiver. In this scenario, caregivers bring their infants into a room filled with toys. The Strange Situation involves a number of phases, including a stranger coming into the room, the caregiver leaving the room, and the caregiver’s return to the room. The infant’s behavior is closely monitored at each phase, but it is the behavior of the infant upon being reunited with the caregiver that is most telling in terms of characterizing the infant’s attachment style with the caregiver.

Another potential problem in observational research is observer bias . Generally, people who act as observers are closely involved in the research project and may unconsciously skew their observations to fit their research goals or expectations. To protect against this type of bias, researchers should have clear criteria established for the types of behaviors recorded and how those behaviors should be classified. In addition, researchers often compare observations of the same event by multiple observers, in order to test inter-rater reliability : a measure of reliability that assesses the consistency of observations by different observers.

Often, psychologists develop surveys as a means of gathering data. Surveys are lists of questions to be answered by research participants, and can be delivered as paper-and-pencil questionnaires, administered electronically, or conducted verbally ( Figure 2.9 ). Generally, the survey itself can be completed in a short time, and the ease of administering a survey makes it easy to collect data from a large number of people.

Surveys allow researchers to gather data from larger samples than may be afforded by other research methods . A sample is a subset of individuals selected from a population , which is the overall group of individuals that the researchers are interested in. Researchers study the sample and seek to generalize their findings to the population. Generally, researchers will begin this process by calculating various measures of central tendency from the data they have collected. These measures provide an overall summary of what a typical response looks like. There are three measures of central tendency: mode, median, and mean. The mode is the most frequently occurring response, the median lies at the middle of a given data set, and the mean is the arithmetic average of all data points. Means tend to be most useful in conducting additional analyses like those described below; however, means are very sensitive to the effects of outliers, and so one must be aware of those effects when making assessments of what measures of central tendency tell us about a data set in question.

There is both strength and weakness of the survey in comparison to case studies. By using surveys, we can collect information from a larger sample of people. A larger sample is better able to reflect the actual diversity of the population, thus allowing better generalizability. Therefore, if our sample is sufficiently large and diverse, we can assume that the data we collect from the survey can be generalized to the larger population with more certainty than the information collected through a case study. However, given the greater number of people involved, we are not able to collect the same depth of information on each person that would be collected in a case study.

Another potential weakness of surveys is something we touched on earlier in this chapter: People don't always give accurate responses. They may lie, misremember, or answer questions in a way that they think makes them look good. For example, people may report drinking less alcohol than is actually the case.

Any number of research questions can be answered through the use of surveys. One real-world example is the research conducted by Jenkins, Ruppel, Kizer, Yehl, and Griffin (2012) about the backlash against the US Arab-American community following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Jenkins and colleagues wanted to determine to what extent these negative attitudes toward Arab-Americans still existed nearly a decade after the attacks occurred. In one study, 140 research participants filled out a survey with 10 questions, including questions asking directly about the participant’s overt prejudicial attitudes toward people of various ethnicities. The survey also asked indirect questions about how likely the participant would be to interact with a person of a given ethnicity in a variety of settings (such as, “How likely do you think it is that you would introduce yourself to a person of Arab-American descent?”). The results of the research suggested that participants were unwilling to report prejudicial attitudes toward any ethnic group. However, there were significant differences between their pattern of responses to questions about social interaction with Arab-Americans compared to other ethnic groups: they indicated less willingness for social interaction with Arab-Americans compared to the other ethnic groups. This suggested that the participants harbored subtle forms of prejudice against Arab-Americans, despite their assertions that this was not the case (Jenkins et al., 2012).

Archival Research

Some researchers gain access to large amounts of data without interacting with a single research participant. Instead, they use existing records to answer various research questions. This type of research approach is known as archival research . Archival research relies on looking at past records or data sets to look for interesting patterns or relationships.

For example, a researcher might access the academic records of all individuals who enrolled in college within the past ten years and calculate how long it took them to complete their degrees, as well as course loads, grades, and extracurricular involvement. Archival research could provide important information about who is most likely to complete their education, and it could help identify important risk factors for struggling students ( Figure 2.10 ).

In comparing archival research to other research methods, there are several important distinctions. For one, the researcher employing archival research never directly interacts with research participants. Therefore, the investment of time and money to collect data is considerably less with archival research. Additionally, researchers have no control over what information was originally collected. Therefore, research questions have to be tailored so they can be answered within the structure of the existing data sets. There is also no guarantee of consistency between the records from one source to another, which might make comparing and contrasting different data sets problematic.

Longitudinal and Cross-Sectional Research

Sometimes we want to see how people change over time, as in studies of human development and lifespan. When we test the same group of individuals repeatedly over an extended period of time, we are conducting longitudinal research. Longitudinal research is a research design in which data-gathering is administered repeatedly over an extended period of time. For example, we may survey a group of individuals about their dietary habits at age 20, retest them a decade later at age 30, and then again at age 40.

Another approach is cross-sectional research. In cross-sectional research , a researcher compares multiple segments of the population at the same time. Using the dietary habits example above, the researcher might directly compare different groups of people by age. Instead of studying a group of people for 20 years to see how their dietary habits changed from decade to decade, the researcher would study a group of 20-year-old individuals and compare them to a group of 30-year-old individuals and a group of 40-year-old individuals. While cross-sectional research requires a shorter-term investment, it is also limited by differences that exist between the different generations (or cohorts) that have nothing to do with age per se, but rather reflect the social and cultural experiences of different generations of individuals that make them different from one another.

To illustrate this concept, consider the following survey findings. In recent years there has been significant growth in the popular support of same-sex marriage. Many studies on this topic break down survey participants into different age groups. In general, younger people are more supportive of same-sex marriage than are those who are older (Jones, 2013). Does this mean that as we age we become less open to the idea of same-sex marriage, or does this mean that older individuals have different perspectives because of the social climates in which they grew up? Longitudinal research is a powerful approach because the same individuals are involved in the research project over time, which means that the researchers need to be less concerned with differences among cohorts affecting the results of their study.

Often longitudinal studies are employed when researching various diseases in an effort to understand particular risk factors. Such studies often involve tens of thousands of individuals who are followed for several decades. Given the enormous number of people involved in these studies, researchers can feel confident that their findings can be generalized to the larger population. The Cancer Prevention Study-3 (CPS-3) is one of a series of longitudinal studies sponsored by the American Cancer Society aimed at determining predictive risk factors associated with cancer. When participants enter the study, they complete a survey about their lives and family histories, providing information on factors that might cause or prevent the development of cancer. Then every few years the participants receive additional surveys to complete. In the end, hundreds of thousands of participants will be tracked over 20 years to determine which of them develop cancer and which do not.

Clearly, this type of research is important and potentially very informative. For instance, earlier longitudinal studies sponsored by the American Cancer Society provided some of the first scientific demonstrations of the now well-established links between increased rates of cancer and smoking (American Cancer Society, n.d.) ( Figure 2.11 ).

As with any research strategy, longitudinal research is not without limitations. For one, these studies require an incredible time investment by the researcher and research participants. Given that some longitudinal studies take years, if not decades, to complete, the results will not be known for a considerable period of time. In addition to the time demands, these studies also require a substantial financial investment. Many researchers are unable to commit the resources necessary to see a longitudinal project through to the end.

Research participants must also be willing to continue their participation for an extended period of time, and this can be problematic. People move, get married and take new names, get ill, and eventually die. Even without significant life changes, some people may simply choose to discontinue their participation in the project. As a result, the attrition rates, or reduction in the number of research participants due to dropouts, in longitudinal studies are quite high and increase over the course of a project. For this reason, researchers using this approach typically recruit many participants fully expecting that a substantial number will drop out before the end. As the study progresses, they continually check whether the sample still represents the larger population, and make adjustments as necessary.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Rose M. Spielman, William J. Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Psychology 2e
• Publication date: Apr 22, 2020
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/2-2-approaches-to-research

© Jan 6, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Difference Between Case Study And Narrative Research

• Success Team
• January 19, 2023

Top-Rated AI Meeting Assistant With Incredible ChatGPT & Qualitative Data Analysis Capabilities

Join 150,000+ individuals and teams who rely on speak ai to capture and analyze unstructured language data for valuable insights. streamline your workflows, unlock new revenue streams and keep doing what you love..

Get a 7-day fully-featured trial!

Research is an important part of any organization or business. There are two main types of research: case studies and narrative research. Both are valuable tools for gathering and analyzing information, but they have some important differences. Understanding the difference between case study and narrative research can help you select the best research method for your particular project.

What is Case Study Research?

Case study research is a type of qualitative research that focuses on a single case, or a small number of cases, to examine in depth. It seeks to understand a phenomenon by examining the context of the case and looking at the experiences, perspectives, and behavior of the people involved. Case study research is often used to explore complex social phenomena, such as poverty, health, education, and social change.

What is Narrative Research?

Narrative research is also a type of qualitative research that focuses on understanding how people make sense of their experiences. It involves collecting and analyzing stories, or narratives, from participants. These stories can be collected through interviews, focus groups, or other data collection techniques. By examining the stories in detail, researchers can gain insights into how people think about and make sense of the world around them.

Differences Between Case Study and Narrative Research

The most important differences between case study and narrative research are the focus and the type of data collected. Case studies focus on a single case or a small number of cases, while narrative research focuses on understanding how people make sense of their experiences. Case studies typically rely on quantitative data, such as surveys and measurements, while narrative research relies on qualitative data, such as interviews, stories, and observations.

Which is Better?

The answer to this question depends on the research question and the type of data needed to answer it. If the goal is to understand a single case in depth, then a case study is the best approach. If the goal is to understand how people make sense of their experiences, then narrative research is the best approach. In some cases, it may be beneficial to use a combination of both approaches.

Case study and narrative research are both valuable tools for gathering and analyzing information. Understanding the difference between the two can help you select the best research method for your particular project. While case studies are useful for understanding a single case in depth, narrative research is better for understanding how people make sense of their experiences. In some cases, it may be beneficial to use a combination of both approaches.

How To Use The Best Large Language Models For Research With Speak

Step 1: Create Your Speak Account

To start your transcription and analysis, you first need to create a Speak account . No worries, this is super easy to do!

Get a 7-day trial with 30 minutes of free English audio and video transcription included when you sign up for Speak.

To sign up for Speak and start using Speak Magic Prompts, visit the Speak app register page here .

Step 2: Upload Your Research Data

We typically recommend MP4s for video or MP3s for audio.

However, we accept a range of audio, video and text file types.

You can upload your file for transcription in several ways using Speak:

Accepted Audio File Types

Accepted video file types, accepted text file types, csv imports.

You can also upload CSVs of text files or audio and video files. You can learn more about CSV uploads and download Speak-compatible CSVs here .

With the CSVs, you can upload anything from dozens of YouTube videos to thousands of Interview Data.

Publicly Available URLs

You can also upload media to Speak through a publicly available URL.

As long as the file type extension is available at the end of the URL you will have no problem importing your recording for automatic transcription and analysis.

YouTube URLs

Speak is compatible with YouTube videos. All you have to do is copy the URL of the YouTube video (for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKfcLcHeivc ).

Speak will automatically find the file, calculate the length, and import the video.

If using YouTube videos, please make sure you use the full link and not the shortened YouTube snippet. Additionally, make sure you remove the channel name from the URL.

Speak Integrations

As mentioned, Speak also contains a range of integrations for Zoom , Zapier , Vimeo and more that will help you automatically transcribe your media.

This library of integrations continues to grow! Have a request? Feel encouraged to send us a message.

Step 3: Calculate and Pay the Total Automatically

Once you have your file(s) ready and load it into Speak, it will automatically calculate the total cost (you get 30 minutes of audio and video free in the 7-day trial - take advantage of it!).

If you are uploading text data into Speak, you do not currently have to pay any cost. Only the Speak Magic Prompts analysis would create a fee which will be detailed below.

Once you go over your 30 minutes or need to use Speak Magic Prompts, you can pay by subscribing to a personalized plan using our real-time calculator .

You can also add a balance or pay for uploads and analysis without a plan using your credit card .

Step 4: Wait for Speak to Analyze Your Research Data

If you are uploading audio and video, our automated transcription software will prepare your transcript quickly. Once completed, you will get an email notification that your transcript is complete. That email will contain a link back to the file so you can access the interactive media player with the transcript, analysis, and export formats ready for you.

If you are importing CSVs or uploading text files Speak will generally analyze the information much more quickly.

Step 5: Visit Your File Or Folder

Speak is capable of analyzing both individual files and entire folders of data.

When you are viewing any individual file in Speak, all you have to do is click on the "Prompts" button.

If you want to analyze many files, all you have to do is add the files you want to analyze into a folder within Speak.

You can do that by adding new files into Speak or you can organize your current files into your desired folder with the software's easy editing functionality.

Step 6: Select Speak Magic Prompts To Analyze Your Research Data

What are magic prompts.

Speak Magic Prompts leverage innovation in artificial intelligence models often referred to as "generative AI".

These models have analyzed huge amounts of data from across the internet to gain an understanding of language.

With that understanding, these "large language models" are capable of performing mind-bending tasks!

With Speak Magic Prompts, you can now perform those tasks on the audio, video and text data in your Speak account.

Step 7: Select Your Assistant Type

To help you get better results from Speak Magic Prompts, Speak has introduced "Assistant Type".

These assistant types pre-set and provide context to the prompt engine for more concise, meaningful outputs based on your needs.

To begin, we have included:

Choose the most relevant assistant type from the dropdown.

Step 8: Create Or Select Your Desired Prompt

Here are some examples prompts that you can apply to any file right now:

• Create a SWOT Analysis
• Give me the top action items
• Create a bullet point list summary
• Tell me the key issues that were left unresolved
• Tell me what questions were asked
• Create Your Own Custom Prompts

A modal will pop up so you can use the suggested prompts we shared above to instantly and magically get your answers.

If you have your own prompts you want to create, select "Custom Prompt" from the dropdown and another text box will open where you can ask anything you want of your data!

Step 9: Review & Share Responses

Speak will generate a concise response for you in a text box below the prompt selection dropdown.

In this example, we ask to analyze all the Interview Data in the folder at once for the top product dissatisfiers.

You can easily copy that response for your presentations, content, emails, team members and more!

Speak Magic Prompts As ChatGPT For Research Data Pricing

Our team at Speak Ai continues to optimize the pricing for Magic Prompts and Speak as a whole.

Right now, anyone in the 7-day trial of Speak gets 100,000 characters included in their account.

If you need more characters, you can easily include Speak Magic Prompts in your plan when you create a subscription.

You can also upgrade the number of characters in your account if you already have a subscription.

Both options are available on the subscription page .

Alternatively, you can use Speak Magic Prompts by adding a balance to your account. The balance will be used as you analyze characters.

Completely Personalize Your Plan 📝

Here at Speak, we've made it incredibly easy to personalize your subscription.

Once you sign-up, just visit our custom plan builder and select the media volume, team size, and features you want to get a plan that fits your needs.

No more rigid plans. Upgrade, downgrade or cancel at any time.

Claim Your Special Offer 🎁

When you subscribe, you will also get a free premium add-on for three months!

That means you save up to $50 USD per month and $150 USD in total.

Once you subscribe to a plan, all you have to do is send us a live chat with your selected premium add-on from the list below:

• Premium Export Options (Word, CSV & More)
• Custom Categories & Insights
• Bulk Editing & Data Organization
• Recorder Customization (Branding, Input & More)
• Media Player Customization
• Shareable Media Libraries

We will put the add-on live in your account free of charge!

What are you waiting for?

Refer Others & Earn Real Money 💸

If you have friends, peers and followers interested in using our platform, you can earn real monthly money.

You will get paid a percentage of all sales whether the customers you refer to pay for a plan, automatically transcribe media or leverage professional transcription services.

Use this link to become an official Speak affiliate.

Check Out Our Dedicated Resources📚

• Speak Ai YouTube Channel
• Guide To Building Your Perfect Speak Plan

Book A Free Implementation Session 🤝

It would be an honour to personally jump on an introductory call with you to make sure you are set up for success.

Just use our Calendly link to find a time that works well for you. We look forward to meeting you!

Top-Rated AI Meeting Assistant With Incredible ChatGPT & Qualitative Data Analysis Capabilities​

Transcribe and analyze your media like never before.

Automatically generate transcripts, captions, insights and reports with intuitive software and APIs.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is a Case-Control Study? | Definition & Examples

What Is a Case-Control Study? | Definition & Examples

Published on February 4, 2023 by Tegan George . Revised on June 22, 2023.

A case-control study is an experimental design that compares a group of participants possessing a condition of interest to a very similar group lacking that condition. Here, the participants possessing the attribute of study, such as a disease, are called the “case,” and those without it are the “control.”

It’s important to remember that the case group is chosen because they already possess the attribute of interest. The point of the control group is to facilitate investigation, e.g., studying whether the case group systematically exhibits that attribute more than the control group does.

Table of contents

When to use a case-control study, examples of case-control studies, advantages and disadvantages of case-control studies, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions.

Case-control studies are a type of observational study often used in fields like medical research, environmental health, or epidemiology. While most observational studies are qualitative in nature, case-control studies can also be quantitative , and they often are in healthcare settings. Case-control studies can be used for both exploratory and explanatory research , and they are a good choice for studying research topics like disease exposure and health outcomes.

A case-control study may be a good fit for your research if it meets the following criteria.

• Data on exposure (e.g., to a chemical or a pesticide) are difficult to obtain or expensive.
• The disease associated with the exposure you’re studying has a long incubation period or is rare or under-studied (e.g., AIDS in the early 1980s).
• The population you are studying is difficult to contact for follow-up questions (e.g., asylum seekers).

Retrospective cohort studies use existing secondary research data, such as medical records or databases, to identify a group of people with a common exposure or risk factor and to observe their outcomes over time. Case-control studies conduct primary research , comparing a group of participants possessing a condition of interest to a very similar group lacking that condition in real time.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Case-control studies are common in fields like epidemiology, healthcare, and psychology.

You would then collect data on your participants’ exposure to contaminated drinking water, focusing on variables such as the source of said water and the duration of exposure, for both groups. You could then compare the two to determine if there is a relationship between drinking water contamination and the risk of developing a gastrointestinal illness. Example: Healthcare case-control study You are interested in the relationship between the dietary intake of a particular vitamin (e.g., vitamin D) and the risk of developing osteoporosis later in life. Here, the case group would be individuals who have been diagnosed with osteoporosis, while the control group would be individuals without osteoporosis.

You would then collect information on dietary intake of vitamin D for both the cases and controls and compare the two groups to determine if there is a relationship between vitamin D intake and the risk of developing osteoporosis. Example: Psychology case-control study You are studying the relationship between early-childhood stress and the likelihood of later developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Here, the case group would be individuals who have been diagnosed with PTSD, while the control group would be individuals without PTSD.

Case-control studies are a solid research method choice, but they come with distinct advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages of case-control studies

• Case-control studies are a great choice if you have any ethical considerations about your participants that could preclude you from using a traditional experimental design .
• Case-control studies are time efficient and fairly inexpensive to conduct because they require fewer subjects than other research methods .
• If there were multiple exposures leading to a single outcome, case-control studies can incorporate that. As such, they truly shine when used to study rare outcomes or outbreaks of a particular disease .

Disadvantages of case-control studies

• Case-control studies, similarly to observational studies, run a high risk of research biases . They are particularly susceptible to observer bias , recall bias , and interviewer bias.
• In the case of very rare exposures of the outcome studied, attempting to conduct a case-control study can be very time consuming and inefficient .
• Case-control studies in general have low internal validity  and are not always credible.

Case-control studies by design focus on one singular outcome. This makes them very rigid and not generalizable , as no extrapolation can be made about other outcomes like risk recurrence or future exposure threat. This leads to less satisfying results than other methodological choices.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Student’s  t -distribution
• Normal distribution
• Null and Alternative Hypotheses
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Data cleansing
• Reproducibility vs Replicability
• Peer review
• Prospective cohort study

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Placebo effect
• Hawthorne effect
• Hindsight bias
• Affect heuristic
• Social desirability bias

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

A case-control study differs from a cohort study because cohort studies are more longitudinal in nature and do not necessarily require a control group .

While one may be added if the investigator so chooses, members of the cohort are primarily selected because of a shared characteristic among them. In particular, retrospective cohort studies are designed to follow a group of people with a common exposure or risk factor over time and observe their outcomes.

Case-control studies, in contrast, require both a case group and a control group, as suggested by their name, and usually are used to identify risk factors for a disease by comparing cases and controls.

A case-control study differs from a cross-sectional study because case-control studies are naturally retrospective in nature, looking backward in time to identify exposures that may have occurred before the development of the disease.

On the other hand, cross-sectional studies collect data on a population at a single point in time. The goal here is to describe the characteristics of the population, such as their age, gender identity, or health status, and understand the distribution and relationships of these characteristics.

Cases and controls are selected for a case-control study based on their inherent characteristics. Participants already possessing the condition of interest form the “case,” while those without form the “control.”

Keep in mind that by definition the case group is chosen because they already possess the attribute of interest. The point of the control group is to facilitate investigation, e.g., studying whether the case group systematically exhibits that attribute more than the control group does.

The strength of the association between an exposure and a disease in a case-control study can be measured using a few different statistical measures , such as odds ratios (ORs) and relative risk (RR).

No, case-control studies cannot establish causality as a standalone measure.

As observational studies , they can suggest associations between an exposure and a disease, but they cannot prove without a doubt that the exposure causes the disease. In particular, issues arising from timing, research biases like recall bias , and the selection of variables lead to low internal validity and the inability to determine causality.

Sources in this article

We strongly encourage students to use sources in their work. You can cite our article (APA Style) or take a deep dive into the articles below.

George, T. (2023, June 22). What Is a Case-Control Study? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/case-control-study/

Schlesselman, J. J. (1982). Case-Control Studies: Design, Conduct, Analysis (Monographs in Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 2) (Illustrated). Oxford University Press.

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what is an observational study | guide & examples, control groups and treatment groups | uses & examples, cross-sectional study | definition, uses & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

• CASP Checklists
• How to use our CASP Checklists
• Referencing and Creative Commons
• Online Training Courses
• CASP Workshops
• What is Critical Appraisal
• Study Designs
• Useful Links
• Bibliography
• View all Tools and Resources
• Testimonials
• What is a Case-Control Study in Research?

Sometimes healthcare professionals need to determine whether specific exposures or treatments increase the risk of developing certain health conditions in large populations. Case-control studies are well-suited for such purposes, as they allow researchers to investigate many different exposures at once with fewer resources than required by other types of studies.

While case-control studies often involve identifying cases from hospital records or disease registries, case-referent studies may expand their case selection criteria beyond these sources, including community-based sampling or stratified random sampling from larger populations.

What is a Case-Control Study?

A case-control study is a research method used in healthcare to investigate potential risk factors for a specific disease. It involves comparing individuals who have been diagnosed with the disease (cases) to those who have not (controls). By analysing the differences between the two groups, researchers can identify factors that may contribute to the development of the disease. 

An example would be when researchers conducted a case-control study examining whether exposure to diesel exhaust particles increases the risk of respiratory disease in underground miners. Cases included miners diagnosed with respiratory disease, while controls were miners without respiratory disease. Participants' past occupational exposures to diesel exhaust particles were evaluated to compare exposure rates between cases and controls.

Overall, case-control studies provide valuable insights into the potential causes of diseases and help inform public health interventions. However, it is important to critically appraise these studies to ensure the validity and clinical significance of their findings.

Types of Case-Control Studies

When it comes to case-control studies, there are different types that researchers can use. 

• Case-referent study : this involves selecting a group of cases and then choosing a group of referents who are similar to the cases in terms of characteristics like age and gender. 
• Matched case-control study : where cases and controls are matched based on specific criteria to ensure that the groups are comparable. 
• Nested case-control study : which utilises existing data from a cohort study and selects cases and controls from within that cohort. 

While most used in retrospective designs, case-control studies can be designed prospectively by identifying future cases and enrolling appropriate controls at that time. These all have strengths and weaknesses, and ultimately the choice of study design will depend on the research question being addressed and available resources. 

What is the Difference Between a Case-Control Study vs Cohort Study?

In the world of research, it's easy to get confused by all the different study types. Two common types are case-control studies and cohort studies .

In a case-control study, researchers start with individuals who have already been diagnosed with a particular disease (cases) and compare them to individuals without the disease (controls). They then look for differences between the two groups to identify potential risk factors. On the other hand, in a cohort study, researchers start with a group of individuals without the disease and follow them over time to see who develops the disease.

The key difference is the direction of the study. Case-control studies look backwards and compare cases to controls, while cohort studies look forward and follow a group of individuals over time. Understanding this distinction is crucial for interpreting research findings accurately.

What Are the Strengths and Weaknesses of Case-Control Studies?

Case-control studies have several strengths that make them a valuable research tool. One major strength is their efficiency. Since cases and controls are selected based on their disease status, case-control studies require fewer participants and less time compared to cohort studies. This makes them more cost-effective and feasible, especially when studying rare diseases or outcomes. Case-control studies are also particularly useful for studying diseases with long latency periods, where following a large cohort over time may be impractical. They also allow for the simultaneous investigation of multiple risk factors, making them versatile in exploring complex diseases.

However, case-control studies also have limitations. The retrospective nature of these studies can lead to recall bias , as participants may have difficulty accurately recalling past exposures. Selection bias can occur if the cases and controls are not representative of the general population. Also, since exposure is assessed after disease development, it can be challenging to establish the temporal relationship between exposure and disease. Despite these limitations, case-control studies remain an important tool in identifying potential risk factors for diseases.

How to Design and Carry Out a Case-Control Study

To design and carry out a case-control study, there are several important steps to consider. 

• Research question : clearly define your research question and determine the cases and controls that will be included in your study. 
• Control group : select an appropriate control group that is similar to your cases in terms of relevant characteristics. This can be done through matching or random selection.
• Collect data : once your study groups are identified, collect data on exposure and other relevant factors for both cases and controls. This can be done through interviews, questionnaires, or reviewing medical records. 
• careful selection of cases and controls 
• using standardised data collection methods
• conducting a pilot study to identify any potential issues.
• Analysis : analyse your data using appropriate statistical methods to determine any associations between exposure and disease. Consider confounding factors and adjust for them if necessary.

By following these steps, you can design and carry out a well-executed case-control study that provides valuable insights into the potential risk factors for a given disease.

How to Reduce Bias in a Case-Control Study

When conducting a case-control study, it is important to minimise bias to ensure the accuracy and validity of your findings. 

One way to reduce bias is by carefully selecting your cases and controls to ensure they are representative of the general population. This can be achieved through random selection or matching based on relevant characteristics. 

Using standardised data collection methods is crucial in reducing bias - this helps to ensure consistency in the way information is gathered from both cases and controls. 

Conducting a pilot study can also help identify any potential issues and allow for adjustments to be made before the main study begins.

How to Critically Appraise a Case-Control Study

When critically appraising a case-control study, it's important to evaluate several key factors to ensure the reliability and validity of the findings. 

Start by assessing the selection of cases and controls and determining whether they are representative of the target population. Look for any potential bias in the selection process, such as non-response bias or misclassification of disease status.

Next, evaluate the measurement of exposure and outcome variables. Consider the reliability and validity of the methods used and determine if they were standardised and consistently applied to both cases and controls.

Another crucial aspect to examine is the control of confounding variables. Check if the study accounted for potential confounders by either matching cases and controls or adjusting for them in the statistical analysis.

Lastly, consider the study's statistical analysis and the strength of the associations reported. Assess if the authors appropriately used statistical tests, reported confidence intervals, and discussed any limitations of the study.

By critically appraising these key elements, you can determine the trustworthiness and applicability of the findings and make informed decisions based on the evidence provided. 

Download our Free CASP Tools Checklist for Case-Control Studies

Our CASP tools checklists will remain free for researchers to download to help them critically appraise their papers. This includes our case-control study CASP download . 

If you require additional CASP training we offer face-to-face workshops or online training courses .

• What Is A Cross-Sectional Study?
• What Is A PICO Tool?
• What Is A Pilot Study?
• Different Types of Bias in Research
• What is Qualitative Research?
• What Are Systematic Reviews? Why Are They Important?
• How to Critically Appraise a Medical Research Paper
• Critical Appraisal for the ISFE Dental Examinations
• What Is a Cohort Study & Why Are They Important?
• Online Learning
• Privacy Policy

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) will use the information you provide on this form to be in touch with you and to provide updates and marketing. Please let us know all the ways you would like to hear from us:

We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here.

Copyright 2024 CASP UK - OAP Ltd. All rights reserved Website by Beyond Your Brand

Case Study vs. Survey

What's the difference.

Case studies and surveys are both research methods used in various fields to gather information and insights. However, they differ in their approach and purpose. A case study involves an in-depth analysis of a specific individual, group, or situation, aiming to understand the complexities and unique aspects of the subject. It often involves collecting qualitative data through interviews, observations, and document analysis. On the other hand, a survey is a structured data collection method that involves gathering information from a larger sample size through standardized questionnaires. Surveys are typically used to collect quantitative data and provide a broader perspective on a particular topic or population. While case studies provide rich and detailed information, surveys offer a more generalizable and statistical overview.

Further Detail

Introduction.

When conducting research, there are various methods available to gather data and analyze it. Two commonly used methods are case study and survey. Both approaches have their own unique attributes and can be valuable in different research contexts. In this article, we will explore the characteristics of case study and survey, highlighting their strengths and limitations.

A case study is an in-depth investigation of a particular individual, group, or phenomenon. It involves collecting detailed information about the subject of study through various sources such as interviews, observations, and document analysis. Case studies are often used in social sciences, psychology, and business research to gain a deep understanding of complex issues.

One of the key attributes of a case study is its ability to provide rich and detailed data. Researchers can gather extensive information about the subject, including their background, experiences, and perspectives. This depth of data allows for a comprehensive analysis and interpretation of the case, providing valuable insights into the phenomenon under investigation.

Furthermore, case studies are particularly useful when studying rare or unique cases. Since case studies focus on specific individuals or groups, they can shed light on situations that are not easily replicated or observed in larger populations. This makes case studies valuable in exploring complex and nuanced phenomena that may not be easily captured through other research methods.

However, it is important to note that case studies have certain limitations. Due to their in-depth nature, case studies are often time-consuming and resource-intensive. Researchers need to invest significant effort in data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Additionally, the findings of a case study may not be easily generalized to larger populations, as the focus is on a specific case rather than a representative sample.

Despite these limitations, case studies offer a unique opportunity to explore complex issues in real-life contexts. They provide a detailed understanding of individual experiences and can generate hypotheses for further research.

A survey is a research method that involves collecting data from a sample of individuals through a structured questionnaire or interview. Surveys are widely used in social sciences, market research, and public opinion studies to gather information about a larger population. They aim to provide a snapshot of people's opinions, attitudes, behaviors, or characteristics.

One of the main advantages of surveys is their ability to collect data from a large number of respondents. By reaching out to a representative sample, researchers can generalize the findings to a larger population. Surveys also allow for efficient data collection, as questionnaires can be distributed electronically or in person, making it easier to gather a wide range of responses in a relatively short period.

Moreover, surveys offer a structured approach to data collection, ensuring consistency in the questions asked and the response options provided. This allows for easy comparison and analysis of the data, making surveys suitable for quantitative research. Surveys can also be conducted anonymously, which can encourage respondents to provide honest and unbiased answers, particularly when sensitive topics are being explored.

However, surveys also have their limitations. One of the challenges is the potential for response bias. Respondents may provide inaccurate or socially desirable answers, leading to biased results. Additionally, surveys often rely on self-reported data, which may be subject to memory recall errors or misinterpretation of questions. Researchers need to carefully design the survey instrument and consider potential biases to ensure the validity and reliability of the data collected.

Furthermore, surveys may not capture the complexity and depth of individual experiences. They provide a snapshot of people's opinions or behaviors at a specific point in time, but may not uncover the underlying reasons or motivations behind those responses. Surveys also rely on predetermined response options, limiting the range of possible answers and potentially overlooking important nuances.

Case studies and surveys are both valuable research methods, each with its own strengths and limitations. Case studies offer in-depth insights into specific cases, providing rich and detailed data. They are particularly useful for exploring complex and unique phenomena. On the other hand, surveys allow for efficient data collection from a large number of respondents, enabling generalization to larger populations. They provide structured and quantifiable data, making them suitable for statistical analysis.

Ultimately, the choice between case study and survey depends on the research objectives, the nature of the research question, and the available resources. Researchers need to carefully consider the attributes of each method and select the most appropriate approach to gather and analyze data effectively.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

• Software Engineering Tutorial
• Software Development Life Cycle
• Waterfall Model
• Software Requirements
• Software Measurement and Metrics
• Software Design Process
• System configuration management
• Software Maintenance
• Software Development Tutorial
• Software Testing Tutorial
• Product Management Tutorial
• Project Management Tutorial
• Agile Methodology
• Selenium Basics
• Difference between CISCO Jabber and Slack
• Difference between DevOps and SysOps
• Difference between Webinar and Video Conference
• Difference between Software Engineering and Computer Engineering
• Difference between Open Source Software and Closed Source Software
• Difference between Project Management and Change Management
• Difference between Desktop publishing (DTP) and Word Processor Software
• Difference between Monkey Testing and Gorilla Testing
• Difference between Descriptive Research and Experimental Research
• Basecamp vs Trello
• Difference Between MSMQ vs RabbitMQ
• Difference between Project Management and Contract Management
• Difference between Project Management and Supply Chain Management
• Difference between Operation Management and Supply Chain Management
• Difference between Logistics Management and Supply Chain Management
• Difference between System Engineer and Software Engineer
• Difference between V-model and Incremental model
• Difference between EMS and NMS
• Difference between Webinar and Web conference

Difference between Case Study and Action research

1. Action Research : Action Research is a type of qualitative research. As the name suggests it is more action oriented in order to solve an immediate problem. Action research helps the researcher to improvise its current practices and is applied for researching into issues. It aims to learn through action leading to personal or professional development means focuses on improving and/or refining actions. This type research generally used in field of education to bridge the gap between educational theory and professional practice by improvising their current practices. This helps in observing the problem and identifying the cause and then addressing the issue so mainly it is more focused on immediate addressing to practical problems and in generating knowledge to produce change.

2. Case Study : Case study research refers to an in-depth examination of a particular event or individual or a group of individuals. It is more of a qualitative method of research where it understand complex issues by deeply observing and analyzing the event or situation by collecting and reporting the data related to the event or situation. Case study research is more towards description rather than immediate cause and effect finding. Case study is categorized into three ways i.e., exploratory, explanatory and descriptive based on research method. These studies involve both quantitative and qualitative data. This type of research can be used to address community-based problems like illiteracy, unemployment, poverty, and drug addiction.

Difference between Case study and Action Research :

Please Login to comment...

Similar reads.

• Difference Between
• Software Engineering
• CBSE Exam Format Changed for Class 11-12: Focus On Concept Application Questions
• 10 Best Waze Alternatives in 2024 (Free)
• 10 Best Squarespace Alternatives in 2024 (Free)
• Top 10 Owler Alternatives & Competitors in 2024
• 30 OOPs Interview Questions and Answers (2024)

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

Home » Education » Difference Between Case Study and Phenomenology

Difference Between Case Study and Phenomenology

Main difference – case study vs phenomenology.

Case study and phenomenology are two terms that are often used in the field of social science s and research. Both these terms refer to types of research methods ; however, phenomenology is also a concept in philosophical studies. As a research methodology, the main difference between case study and phenomenology is that case study is an in-depth and detailed investigation of the development of a single event, situation, or an individual over a period of time whereas phenomenology is a study that is designed to understand the subjective, lived experiences and perspectives of participants.

In this article, we will be discussing,

     1. What is a Case Study           – Definition, Use, Data Collection, Limitations      2. What is Phenomenology           – Definition, Use, Data Collection, Limitations      3. What is the difference between Case Study and Phenomenology

What is a Case Study

A case study is defined as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used” (Yin,1984).  In simple terms, it is an in-depth and detailed investigation of the development of a single event, situation, or an individual over a period of time. Case studies are often used to explore and unearth complex issues such as social issues, medical conditions, etc. Many researchers use case study method to explore social issues like prostitution, drug addiction, unemployment, and poverty. Case studies can be qualitative and/or quantitative in nature.

A case study commences with identifying and defining the research problem; then the researcher has to select the cases and decide techniques for data collection and analysis. This is followed by collecting data in the field and evaluating and analyzing the data. The final step in a case study involves preparing the research report.  Data collection methods in a case study involve observations, questionnaires, interviews, analysis of recorded data, etc. A successful case study is always context-sensitive, holistic, systematic, layered and comprehensive.

Case studies are sometimes classified into three categories known as exploratory, descriptive and explanatory case studies. Ethnographies are also considered as a type of case studies.

Although case studies offer detailed and in-depth information about a particular phenomenon, it is difficult to use this information to form generalization since they only focus on a single phenomenon.

Figure 1: Questionnaires can be used to collect data for case studies.

What is Phenomenology

Phenomenology is both a philosophy and a research method. As a philosophical study, phenomenology refers to the study of the structures of experience and consciousness. In the field of research, it refers to a study that is designed to understand the subjective, lived experiences and perspectives of participants. Phenomenology is based on the principle that a single experience can be interpreted in multiple ways and that reality consists of each participant’s interpretation of the said experience. Thus, phenomenology provides information about unique individual experiences, offering a rich and complete description of human experiences and meanings.

Data is collected in phenomenology through long and intensive, semi-structured or unstructured personal interviews. The researcher may also have to conduct several interview sessions with each participant since phenomenology relies heavily on interviews. However, the information gathered through these interviews may also depend on the interviewing skills of the researcher and the articulate skills of the participants. This is a limitation of this method.

Figure 2: Phenomenology often involves long personal interviews.

Case Study: Case study is an in-depth and detailed investigation of the development of a single event, situation, or an individual over a period of time.

Phenomenology: Phenomenology is a study that is designed to understand the subjective, lived experiences and perspectives of participants.

Data Collection

Case Study: Data collection methods include observations, interviews, questionnaires, etc.

Phenomenology: Interviews are the main method of data collection.

Case Study: Case studies focus on a single incident, event, organization, or an individual.

Phenomenology: Phenomenology focus on various individuals and their experiences.

Limitations

Case Study: The information obtained from a case study cannot be used to make generalizations.

Phenomenology: Information relies heavily on the interviewing skills of the researcher and the articulate skills of the participants.

Reference: 1. Yin, Robert. “Case study research. Beverly Hills.” (1984).

Image Courtesy: 1. “5 Candidates reading a questionnaire Photo Tony Ntumba MONUSCO” by MONUSCO Photos (CC BY-SA 2.0) via Flickr 2. “1702648” (Public Domain) via Pixabay

About the Author: Hasa

Hasanthi is a seasoned content writer and editor with over 8 years of experience. Armed with a BA degree in English and a knack for digital marketing, she explores her passions for literature, history, culture, and food through her engaging and informative writing.

​You May Also Like These

Leave a reply cancel reply.

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 4.4.2024 in Vol 26 (2024)

Impacts of an Acute Care Telenursing Program on Discharge, Patient Experience, and Nursing Experience: Retrospective Cohort Comparison Study

Authors of this article:

Original Paper

• Courtenay R Bruce, MA, JD   ; 
• Steve Klahn, RN, MBA   ; 
• Lindsay Randle, MBA   ; 
• Xin Li, BS   ; 
• Kelkar Sayali, BS   ; 
• Barbara Johnson, BSN, MBA, DNP   ; 
• Melissa Gomez, MBA   ; 
• Meagan Howard, MHA   ; 
• Roberta Schwartz, PhD   ; 
• Farzan Sasangohar, PhD  

Houston Methodist, Houston, TX, United States

Corresponding Author:

Courtenay R Bruce, MA, JD

Houston Methodist

8100 Greenbriar Drive

Houston, TX, 77030

United States

Phone: 1 281 620 9040

Email: [email protected]

Background: Despite widespread growth of televisits and telemedicine, it is unclear how telenursing could be applied to augment nurse labor and support nursing.

Objective: This study evaluated a large-scale acute care telenurse (ACTN) program to support web-based admission and discharge processes for hospitalized patients.

Methods: A retrospective, observational cohort comparison was performed in a large academic hospital system (approximately 2100 beds) in Houston, Texas, comparing patients in our pilot units for the ACTN program (telenursing cohort) between June 15, 2022, and December 31, 2022, with patients who did not participate (nontelenursing cohort) in the same units and timeframe. We used a case mix index analysis to confirm comparable patient cases between groups. The outcomes investigated were patient experience, measured using the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems (HCAHCPS) survey; nursing experience, measured by a web-based questionnaire with quantitative multiple-choice and qualitative open-ended questions; time of discharge during the day (from electronic health record data); and duration of discharge education processes.

Results: Case mix index analysis found no significant case differences between cohorts ( P =.75). For the first 4 units that rolled out in phase 1, all units experienced improvement in at least 4 and up to 7 HCAHCPS domains. Scores for “communication with doctors” and “would recommend hospital” were improved significantly ( P =.03 and P =.04, respectively) in 1 unit in phase 1. The impact of telenursing in phases 2 and 3 was mixed. However, “communication with doctors” was significantly improved in 2 units ( P =.049 and P =.002), and the overall rating of the hospital and the ”would recommend hospital” scores were significantly improved in 1 unit ( P =.02 and P =04, respectively). Of 289 nurses who were invited to participate in the survey, 106 completed the nursing experience survey (response rate 106/289, 36.7%). Of the 106 nurses, 101 (95.3%) indicated that the ACTN program was very helpful or somewhat helpful to them as bedside nurses. The only noticeable difference between the telenursing and nontelenursing cohorts for the time of day discharge was a shift in the volume of patients discharged before 2 PM compared to those discharged after 2 PM at a hospital-wide level. The ACTN admissions averaged 12 minutes and 6 seconds (SD 7 min and 29 s), and the discharges averaged 14 minutes and 51 seconds (SD 8 min and 10 s). The average duration for ACTN calls was 13 minutes and 17 seconds (SD 7 min and 52 s). Traditional cohort standard practice (nontelenursing cohort) of a bedside nurse engaging in discharge and admission processes was 45 minutes, consistent with our preimplementation time study.

Conclusions: This study shows that ACTN programs are feasible and associated with improved outcomes for patient and nursing experience and reducing time allocated to admission and discharge education.

Introduction

Telemedicine, particularly video televisits, has greatly expanded in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic [ 1 , 2 ]. Televisits have shown promise as a robust, practical, efficacious, and scalable alternative to in-person office visits that could ameliorate labor supply shortages [ 3 , 4 ]. The published evidence suggests a generally positive attitude toward televisit appointments for chronic care, focused on addressing financial and transportation barriers and improving patients’ access to care [ 5 - 7 ]. Despite the promise shown by televisits, limited attention has been paid to applying this method in the acute care setting and, in particular, on how this promising technology can be leveraged to support nurses.

Estimates suggest that approximately 200,000 open nursing positions will become available each year between 2021 and 2031 [ 8 ]. Telenursing can augment nursing labor supply, decrease nursing workload, maintain patient and nurse safety, and positively impact nursing and patient experiences [ 9 ]. However, the impact of telenursing on outcomes in acute care settings remains a research gap.

To address this gap, this study aimed to evaluate the outcomes associated with a large-scale acute care telenurse (ACTN) program to support web-based admission and discharge processes for hospitalized patients compared to patients who did not undergo the ACTN program intervention. Admission and discharge are 2 substantive and time-consuming acute care nursing tasks that involve tedious documentation in the electronic health record (EHR) and extensive interaction with patients and families to gather history and provide patient education [ 10 , 11 ]. We aimed to develop an ACTN program to augment nursing care by conducting admission and discharge processes through telenursing in a large health system. Subsequently, we discuss the impacts on 4 end points: patient experience, nursing experience, time of discharge during the day, and length of time for discharge education processes. We hypothesized that the ACTN program would be associated with higher patient experience scores and improved nursing experience compared to standard admission and discharge practices.

This study was conducted in a large academic hospital system (approximately 2100 beds) in Houston, Texas. The preimplementation methods are reported more extensively in the studies by Hehman et al [ 12 ] and Schwartz et al [ 13 ]. Program implementation was first informed by nursing time and workload surveys and pilot implementation in 4 comparatively understaffed units. The chief innovation officer, along with nursing leaders and ACTN program administrators, met with the bedside nursing staff of these 4 understaffed units to solicit their input on where and how ACTN would add value to their workflow. Bedside nursing staff provided critical input on admission processes that could be delegated to individuals working remotely with no perceived negative impact on patient experience. We conducted participatory workflow design sessions with bedside nursing staff on the ACTN program to cocreate workflow integration points where the remote team could assist [ 13 ].

Pilot Implementation and Procedures

Before implementation, the ACTN administrators trained bedside nurses in pilot units by demonstrating the use of technology during shift huddles. Then, the trainers presented slides on contact information and available support and provided a role demarcation process map, showing what the remote telenurse staff would be doing compared to what the bedside nurses needed to do to launch and conduct discharge education. Furthermore, the trainers invited the nursing staff to observe several discharges to learn how to conduct them. A software with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliance was uploaded to iPads (Apple Inc) and stored on each unit. Handheld iPads were available, and roaming iPads were made available for patients who could not hold an iPad.

The pilot implementation was staggered in a phased rollout, consisting of 3 sequenced phases, as shown in Figure 1 . Upon admission, the acute care bedside nurse contextualized the ACTN program with patients and families by handing the patient an iPad with a preloaded remote program app (Caregility) and then pressing a soft key to allow the ACTN to enter the patient’s room via the iPad screen. The ACTN introduced themselves, completed the nursing admission profile in the EHR, placed a request for a consultation, and notified the bedside nurse that the admission was completed using secure SMS text messaging [ 13 ]. A similar process was followed for discharge workflow processes, where the ACTN completed patient education on discharge instructions, confirmed the patient’s pharmacy details, confirmed discharge transportation, and arranged for departure.

Bedside nurses used their discretion regarding which patients would be appropriate for the ACTN program. They based this determination principally on whether documentation was needed and whether the patient could benefit from the undivided attention the ACTN program could afford. Furthermore, they excluded patients from the ACTN program if the patients expressed discomfort using an iPad. After the initial rollout, patients’ input was sought on their experience with the ACTN program to identify where and how improvements could be made, and this feedback was incorporated into iterative revisions in subsequent rollouts.

Pilot Outcomes Monitoring

A retrospective, observational cohort comparison was performed, in which all patients in our pilot units for the ACTN program (telenursing cohort) between June 15, 2022, and December 31, 2022, were compared with all patients who did not participate (nontelenursing cohort) in the same units in the same timeframe.

Our primary outcomes were patient experience and nursing experience. Patient experience scope was any process observable by patients [ 14 ]. We compared patient experiences in the telenursing and nontelenursing cohorts by evaluating patients’ responses to the widely used Hospital Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey [ 15 ], which represented 8 aspects (called dimensions) of patient satisfaction. Each dimension was measured using a continuous variable (0 to 100 points).

For the telenursing cohort, we analyzed bedside nurses’ collective responses using a Forms (Microsoft Corp) survey conducted in April 2023. The survey consisted of 5 questions, asking them to indicate whether the ACTN program was helpful using a Likert scale with 5 items (very helpful to very unhelpful). Nurses were asked to provide open-ended comments to explain the reasons for their evaluation. At the end of the survey, we included 2 open-ended fields for nurses to describe opportunities for improvement in future rollouts and provide any additional comments.

Furthermore, we explored the time at which discharge occurred using the EHR admission, discharge, and transfer date and time. We compared the hour of the day the patient was discharged in the telenursing cohort with the hour of the day the patient was discharged in the nontelenursing cohort, hypothesizing a priori that patients might be discharged earlier in the day in the telenursing cohort. Finally, we analyzed the duration of discharge education for both cohorts, measured in minutes.

Data Analysis

The patient demographic data were available for all patients. To confirm that the telenursing cohort had similar patient demographics as the nontelenursing cohort (and therefore to confirm that nurse biases in patient selection for the ACTN program were unlikely), we conducted a case mix index (CMI) evaluation. We first isolated the population of both cohorts into adults (aged ≥18 y). We compared only those patients who were discharged home and excluded those who were on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or those who underwent a tracheostomy. The remaining population was evaluated to determine whether there was a difference in patient acuity and severity. After confirming that patient acuity and severity were of no significant difference, we included the inpatient and observation populations to evaluate the intervention results.

For the patient experience data, independent sample t tests (2-tailed) were used to compare the telenursing and nontelenursing cohorts across different HCAHPS dimensions and units. Analysis was conducted using R software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). For the nursing experience survey data, we used Excel (Microsoft Corp) to analyze the responses to multiple-choice, discrete questions and thematic analysis to evaluate the open-text fields. Thematic analysis allows for eliciting key themes that emerge based on recurring statements [ 16 ]. The analysis followed an inductive approach. This approach uses open-ended questions, allowing themes to emerge with a few previously articulated assumptions on responses. Given the limited content, CRB served as the primary coder. Coding labels were used for data contextualizing, allowing for new themes to emerge throughout the coding process, using a codebook [ 16 , 17 ]. We stored emergent patterns and themes in an electronic format.

Ethical Considerations

The hospital’s review board determined that the ACTN pilot would not be considered regulated human subjects research. All data reported in this study were aggregated and deidentified.

The demographics of the telenursing and nontelenursing cohorts were relatively similar. Both cohorts had an average age of 60 years with an SD of 16.91; had a similar distribution in race and ethnicity (approximately 92/2319, 3.96% Asian; 525/2319, 22.64% Black; 425/2319, 18.33% Hispanic; 70/2319, 3.02% Native American, declined to identify, or other categories; and 1202/2319, 51.83% White); and had a similar distribution in female participants versus male participants (1249/2319, 53.86% vs 1070/2319, 46.14%). To further understand the population, the CMI analysis for acuity and severity showed that the CMI was slightly higher in the telenursing cohort than in the nontelenursing cohort, but the difference was not statistically significant ( P =.75).

Patient Experience

Among the first 4 units that rolled out in phase 1, all units experienced improvement in at least 4 and up to 7 HCAHPS domains (Table S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ). On average, 6 out of 8 HCAHPS domains were improved for patients in the telenursing cohort. All 4 units experienced improvements in the “overall rating” domain, and 3 of the 4 units experienced improvements in “likelihood to recommend” domain for patients in the telenursing cohort compared to those in the nontelenursing cohort within the same units. The improvement scores ranged from 1.4% for the neurosurgery unit (36 beds) to 11.6% for the medical unit (37 beds). Furthermore, all 4 units in the first phase of roll out experienced improved scores in the “responsiveness” domain by >4 points (ranging from 5% to 10.1%). A total of 2 out of the 4 units also experienced improvements in the “communication with nurses” (ranging from 1.7% to 3%) and “communication about medicines” (ranging from 3.3% to 11.7%) domains. The 2 units that did not experience improvement in the communication domains were the combined medical and surgery neurology and neurosurgical units (36 beds). Only the neurosurgical unit showed statistically significant improvements in 2 dimensions: “communication with doctors” ( P =.03) and “would recommend hospital” ( P =.04).

For the 7 units that rolled out during phase 2, only 1 orthopedic surgery unit (28 beds) experienced improvements in every domain (ranging from 0.9% to 12.5%). Medical observation unit 1 also improved in 5 areas. However, only improvements in “communication with doctors” ( P =.002), “overall rating of hospital” ( P =.02), and “would recommend hospital” ( P =.04) were statistically significant . The remaining units experienced improvements in some domains for the telenursing cohort compared to the nontelenursing cohort, with no improvement in other domains. However, the scores for “communication with nurses” and “communication with doctors” domains were improved for most of the units that rolled out in phase 2 (Table S2 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ).

For the 2 units that rolled out in phase 3, both of which were surgical cardiac units with 36 beds, 1 unit experienced improvement in every domain except “responsiveness” (ranging from 1% to 12%). The other unit only experienced improvement in the “communication with doctors” (4.9%) and “care transitions” domains (1.1%). However, none of these improvements were statistically significant (Table S3 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ).

Nursing Experience

Of the 289 nurses who were invited to participate in the survey, 106 completed the survey (36.7% response rate). Of the 106 nurses, 101 (95.3%) indicated that the ACTN program was “very helpful” or “somewhat helpful” to them as bedside nurses.

Quantitative Findings

The main reasons nurses gave for the program’s helpfulness included that it saved them time (94/106, 88.7%), allowed them to focus on more urgent clinical needs (90/106, 84.9%), allowed them to focus on activities they felt were more in line with their skill level (55/106, 51.9%), and allowed patients to have undivided attention for their discharge education (52/106, 49.1%). Among the 5 nurses who indicated that the ACTN program was somewhat unhelpful or very unhelpful, 3 (60%) indicated that workflows were not clear or needed further refinement or clarification. Furthermore, the nurse respondents shared several barriers and provided opportunities for improvement, with 91 (85.8%) out of 106 nurses offering suggestions.

Qualitative Findings

For the free-text explanation fields, all but 3 nurses (103/106, 97.2%) provided additional comments on the ACTN program helpfulness. Three themes emerged from the qualitative analysis of the free-text comments: (1) most of the nurses’ comments reflected that telenurses help bedside nurses save time, (2) respondents indicated that extra hands provided emotional and physical support in providing patient care, and (3) respondents perceived an improvement in patient safety by having a telenurse who could “catch missed” issues.

Time Saving

One of the perceived benefits of the telenursing program was saving time. One nurse said the following:

... Just putting in home medications alone takes up so much time. This new telenurse service helps [save time]

Several nurses highlighted that admission and discharge processes are so complex and time-consuming that shifting this work to the ACTN program freed nurses to perform other activities, as reflected by this nurse:

The tele RN is able to spend as much time possible sufficiently educating an admission or discharge while allowing me time to respond to the needs of my other patients saving me time on one patient especially charting.

Emotional and Physical Support

For the second theme, several responses focused less on time management and perceived efficiencies and instead centered more on the emotional appeal and support in having an extra hand, as one nurse mentioned:

Being in such a fast-paced unit, it can be a bit stressful with so many discharges and admissions. Having a helpful hand is beneficial.

Improved Patient Safety

Finally, the third theme was perceived improvement in patient safety by having a telenurse who could “catch missed” issues (eg, an incorrectly identified pharmacy details), simultaneously allowing the primary bedside nurse to focus more intensely on other needs, essentially creating a 2-fold safety promotion. Some nurses noted that they could begin carrying out orders while the telenurses began completing the admission, facilitating quicker treatment and resolution of care needs, thereby improving the safety and quality of care. One nurse mentioned the following:

Allows [telenurses] to take on thorough and accurate admissions, while also preventing any rushing the patient might experience from the primary RN.

When asked for areas of improvement, the most recurring theme was having 24 hours of support during the weekend and during the week. The second theme for improvement was the reduced time to connect to a telenurse. The third theme was the availability of iPads. Nurses mentioned that iPads could sometimes be unavailable in patients’ rooms or they may not be fully charged.

Time of Discharge

The time of day distribution is presented in Figure 2 . The only noticeable difference between the telenursing and nontelenursing cohorts was a shift in the volume of patients discharged before 2 PM compared with those discharged after 2 PM at a hospital-wide level ( Table 1 ). At an individual unit level, these results were not consistent and could be further explored by patient population and their needs to discharge. The variation was further illustrated when reviewing the length of stay of patients in the telenursing and nontelenursing cohorts. Only 5 out of the 12 units showed a decrease in the average inpatient length of stay.

Discharge Length

The ACTN admissions averaged 12 minutes and 6 seconds (SD 7 min and 29 s), and the discharges averaged 14 minutes and 51 seconds (SD 8 min and 10 s). The average duration for ACTN calls was 13 minutes and 17 seconds (SD 7 min and 52 s). Traditional cohort standard practice of a bedside nurse engaging in discharge and admission processes was 45 minutes, consistent with our preimplementation nursing time study.

Principal Findings

Our results suggest that the ACTN program was associated with positive nursing experiences because it saved time. Furthermore, the ACTN program was associated with higher HCAHPS scores in several domains but only in the first series of units that piloted the intervention. In phase 1, the improvement in “communication with doctors” and “would recommend hospital” scores in 1 unit was statistically significant. In phase 2, the improvement in “communication with doctors” score was significant in 2 units and that in “overall rating of hospital” and “would recommend hospital” scores were significant in 1 unit. The time of day discharge was nearly the same in both the telenursing and nontelenursing cohorts. The duration for discharge processes was less than half in the ACTN cohort compared to the nonintervention cohort.

At the time of writing this paper, the United States was experiencing a critical nursing shortage that will likely reach an epidemic level in the next few decades [ 8 ]. Despite the promise shown by telenursing, to our knowledge, only 1 existing paper documents the impact of ACTN programs on HCAHPS-measured patient satisfaction using a small cohort of patients in a single, time-limited pre- and posttelenursing analysis [ 18 ]. A study by Schuelke et al [ 18 ] revealed a 6.2% increase in “communication with meds” and 12.7% increase in “communication with nursing” domain scores; other HCAHPS domains were not evaluated. This research builds upon the promising work of Schuelke et al [ 18 ], evaluating the impact of an ACTN program on several units with a much larger cohort of patients using a staggered rollout and comparing all HCAHPS domains between telenursing and nontelenursing cohorts within the same time frame and in the same units.

By conducting granular HCAHPS analyses, we identified what we believed to be a time sequence variability in that units that rolled out in phase 1 performed considerably stronger in HCAHPS impacts than units that rolled out in later phases. An explanation for this sequence effect might be that some later adopters had less potential for high effect size, given that the first 4 units of the rollout were specifically chosen for their staffing problems compared to later units. ACTN support might have augmented the staffing support to such a degree that allowed the impacts of the program to be more salient. An alternative explanation is that the early adopters and promoters tend to have greater diffusion uptake, greater saturation and adoptability, and greater impacts compared to late adopters or those resistant to adoption [ 19 , 20 ]. Our anecdotal evidence suggests that early adopters might have wanted the telenursing program to succeed; therefore, they applied consistent implementation practices to ensure success. Adopters in later stages were more aware of barriers and potential downsides and might have been more ambivalent about telenursing and, therefore, less likely to modify their behaviors to promote the telenursing program’s success.

Another interesting finding was that the ACTN program seemed to be effective for both medical and surgical units of all specialties. Phase 1 was a mix of medical and surgical units; however, all units experienced increases in scores. Phases 2 and 3 experienced mixed results, without a clear lead for one specialty over the other. This may suggest that ACTN programs are broadly applicable across acute settings and that success depends most crucially on the need and desire of unit leaders.

Our time of day discharge findings showed only a few quantitative positive efficiencies. However, our discharge duration analysis and nursing experience survey results showed that ACTN has major time-saving benefits for nurses, suggesting a discrepancy between perceived and actual time savings versus time-of-day discharge savings. One explanation for this discrepancy may be that many factors beyond nursing impact the time of the day a patient is discharged; therefore, while the bedside nurses’ time is saved, the remaining discharge processes beyond nurses remain unaffected. Specifically, there are 3 segments of time during discharge processes: (1) the time for the discharge order and medication reconciliation [ 21 ] to the time the after-visit summary (AVS) is populated and printed [ 22 ]; (2) the time the AVS is completed and printed to the time the discharge instructions are provided; and (3) the time from providing the discharge instructions to the actual discharge ( Figure 3 ). Notably, telenurses’ involvement is currently limited to only the second segment of time. Specifically, telenurses’ involvement is not initiated until the AVS is printed by the nurse, which means that telenurses cannot positively impact any discharge activity that occurs between the time the discharge order is written and the time the AVS is printed. However, there are inefficiencies and bottlenecks in discharge processes that occur well before the AVS is printed [ 23 , 24 ]. For instance, the discharging physician may write a conditional discharge order early in the morning, listing conditions that cannot be fulfilled within a few hours or it may take bedside nursing longer than anticipated time to print the AVS.

To create a wider cascade effect for positively impacting the discharge processes for all segments of time, we are currently trying to obtain greater transparency through EHR reporting in what occurs for segments 1 and 3. For instance, at present, we know that at least 2 hospitals in our 8-hospital system have high incidence rates of conditional discharge orders that should be reduced. One hospital anecdotally reports that the discharging physician identifies incorrect pharmacies, which requires a nurse to send the scripts back to the discharging pharmacist to reconcile before discharge education can occur [ 25 ]; however, the prevalence and location of these issues remain speculative. Segment 3 is a black box of time [ 26 ]—the time it takes for hospital transport or an ambulance to arrive and move the patient to their destination and the time it takes for the family to pick up the patient. All these factors impact the discharge processes and need to be fully elucidated, explored, and streamlined. Furthermore, we hope to facilitate processes that enable telenurses to print the AVS, to remove the dependency on bedside nurses to begin the discharge education process.

Limitations

This study has several noteworthy limitations. First, the study was conducted in 1 health system and the results may not be generalizable to other settings with different patient populations, processes, and implementation strategies [ 27 ]. Second, in this study, we did not control for other factors that could impact patient and provider satisfaction as well as discharge times; telenursing can only improve upon one component in a complex set of factors limiting discharge efficiency and satisfaction outcomes. Finally, participating nurses were aware of the ongoing study, and this knowledge might have affected their behavior [ 28 ].

Future Directions

After the completion of this pilot study, the ACTN admission and discharge program has been rolled out to pilot medical units and all surgical and observation units. Our rationale for expansion rested on the premise that nursing experience is important to maintain and strengthen, particularly at a time when turnover is high in the health care industry in general. It is important to reduce staff inefficiencies in workload as a means of preserving or strengthening organizational morale and cost saving. Because our nursing experience findings for the ACTN program heavily supported the program, this served as the primary motivation for expansion. The nursing experience findings, coupled with the findings related to time-savings in discharge education and modest improvement, though not negative, in the HCAHPS findings for the ACTN program compared to the nontelenursing cohort, further supported expansion.

The initial scope for expansion included a complete system-wide implementation for all admissions and discharges. Furthermore, we are planning to expand the ACTN program beyond admissions and discharges. Responsive to qualitative feedback reported earlier, the next phase of the ACTN program will add safeguards on high-risk medications by having telenurses conduct double-checks, skin assessments, hourly rounding assistance, and auditing of safety functions and educational activities. These activities were chosen because they are time-intensive for nursing staff on the patient floors. Additional support in these areas would be a staff morale booster in addition to improved efficiencies for bedside nursing. Conducting hourly rounding using the ACTN program will require more time and resources; however, conducting high-quality, uninterrupted hourly rounds is known to be effective at improving patient safety and patient experience outcomes [ 29 ]. Therefore, we suspect that the ACTN program will have some positive impacts if rounds are consistently conducted, even if conducted virtually.

In addition, the ACTNs have been motivating other specialties to adopt or consider a similar program as the ACTN program to support stretched staffing. These specialties include respiratory care, in which virtual support can quickly identify patients in need of intensive on-site support; pharmacy, in which direct communication with staff on medications and patient training can happen through virtual means; infection control, in which room environments can be reviewed through virtual audits, moving quickly from floor to floor; and guest relations and spiritual care, in which patients can be visited virtually upon patient request. Furthermore, physicians who wish to either virtually enter inpatient rooms during their clinic days or from home can quickly drop in to see patients using the virtual program. For these groups to further develop advanced inpatient telemedicine programs, additional technology will be required, including cameras that can zoom into various portions of the room and advanced sound capabilities. Future work could expand programs similar to ACTN to specialties such as respiratory therapy, pharmacy, infection prevention, and spiritual care.

Conclusions

This study provides preliminary evidence suggesting that telenursing may effectively address nursing shortages in acute care settings and positively impact patient and provider satisfaction as well as admission and discharge times. More work is needed to validate the findings in other settings, use other satisfaction metrics, and investigate the impact of telenursing on the quality of care and cost.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Jacob M Kolman, MA, ISMPP CMPP, senior scientific writer, Houston Methodist Academic Institute, for the critical review and for providing formatting feedback on this manuscript. The authors would also like to thank Amir Hossein Javid for his help with statistical analysis.

Data Availability

Data sharing is not applicable as no data sets were generated during this study.

Authors' Contributions

All authors were involved in the conceptualization, review and approval, and writing of the manuscript. LR, BJ, MG, RS, SK, and MH were extensively involved in the implementation of the project. BJ, MH, SK, and MG conducted the training. SK and XL conducted the analyses. CRB wrote and edited the manuscript, inserted and refined the citations, and provided critical feedback during implementation and analyses. CRB and FS were involved in all stages of writing and publication. All authors meaningfully contributed to the drafting, writing, brainstorming, executing, finalizing, and approving of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Additional outcome information for Hospital Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems, time of day discharges, and discharge education processes.

• Greiwe J. Telemedicine lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. Jan 21, 2022;22(1):1-5. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Doraiswamy S, Abraham A, Mamtani R, Cheema S. Use of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. Dec 01, 2020;22(12):e24087. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ekeland AG, Bowes A, Flottorp S. Effectiveness of telemedicine: a systematic review of reviews. Int J Med Inform. Nov 2010;79(11):736-771. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Nanda M, Sharma R. A review of patient satisfaction and experience with telemedicine: a virtual solution during and beyond COVID-19 pandemic. Telemed J E Health. Dec 01, 2021;27(12):1325-1331. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Yu X, Bayram A. Managing capacity for virtual and office appointments in chronic care. Health Care Manag Sci. Dec 2021;24(4):742-767. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Laskowski ER, Johnson SE, Shelerud RA, Lee JA, Rabatin AE, Driscoll SW, et al. The telemedicine musculoskeletal examination. Mayo Clin Proc. Aug 2020;95(8):1715-1731. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hughes L, Petrella A, Phillips N, Taylor RM. Virtual care and the impact of COVID-19 on nursing: a single centre evaluation. J Adv Nurs. Feb 2022;78(2):498-509. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Pulse on the nation’s nurses survey series: COVID-19 two-year impact assessment survey. American Nurses Foundation. Mar 1, 2022. URL: https:/​/www.​nursingworld.org/​~4a2260/​contentassets/​872ebb13c63f44f6b11a1bd0c74907c9/​covid-19-two-year-impact-assessment-written-report-final.​pdf [accessed 2023-04-14]
• Abraham C, Jensen C, Rossiter L, Dittman Hale D. Telenursing and remote patient monitoring in cardiovascular health. Telemed J E Health. Sep 08, 2023. (forthcoming). [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Rouleau G, Gagnon M, Côté J, Payne-Gagnon J, Hudson E, Dubois CA. Impact of information and communication technologies on nursing care: results of an overview of systematic reviews. J Med Internet Res. Apr 25, 2017;19(4):e122. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Moy AJ, Schwartz JM, Chen R, Sadri S, Lucas E, Cato KD, et al. Measurement of clinical documentation burden among physicians and nurses using electronic health records: a scoping review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. Apr 23, 2021;28(5):998-1008. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hehman MC, Fontenot NM, Drake GK, Musgrove RS. Leveraging digital technology in nursing. Health Emerg Disaster Nurs. 2023;10:41-45. [ CrossRef ]
• Schwartz RL, Hamlin SK, Vozzella GM, Randle LN, Klahn S, Maris GJ, et al. Utilizing telenursing to supplement acute care nursing in an era of workforce shortages: a feasibility pilot. Comput Inform Nurs. Feb 01, 2024;42(2):151-157. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Cleary PD. Evolving concepts of patient-centered care and the assessment of patient care experiences: optimism and opposition. J Health Polit Policy Law. Aug 28, 2016;41(4):675-696. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• CAHPS hospital survey. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. URL: https://www.ahrq.gov/cahps/surveys-guidance/hospital/index.html [accessed 2023-10-12]
• Strauss A, Corbin JM. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications; 1990.
• Hennink MM, Kaiser BN, Marconi VC. Code saturation versus meaning saturation: how many interviews are enough? Qual Health Res. Mar 2017;27(4):591-608. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Schuelke S, Aurit S, Connot N, Denney S. Virtual nursing: the new reality in quality care. Nurs Adm Q. 2019;43(4):322-328. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Rogers E. Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY. Free Press of Glenco; 1962.
• Mohammadi MM, Poursaberi R, Salahshoor MR. Evaluating the adoption of evidence-based practice using Rogers's diffusion of innovation theory: a model testing study. Health Promot Perspect. 2018;8(1):25-32. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Fernandes BD, Almeida PH, Foppa AA, Sousa CT, Ayres LR, Chemello C. Pharmacist-led medication reconciliation at patient discharge: a scoping review. Res Social Adm Pharm. May 2020;16(5):605-613. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Federman A, Sarzynski E, Brach C, Francaviglia P, Jacques J, Jandorf L, et al. Challenges optimizing the after visit summary. Int J Med Inform. Dec 2018;120:14-19. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bristol AA, Elmore CE, Weiss ME, Barry LA, Iacob E, Johnson EP, et al. Mixed-methods study examining family carers' perceptions of the relationship between intrahospital transitions and patient readiness for discharge. BMJ Qual Saf. Aug 2023;32(8):447-456. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Piniella NR, Fuller TE, Smith L, Salmasian H, Yoon CS, Lipsitz SR, et al. Early expected discharge date accuracy during hospitalization: a multivariable analysis. J Med Syst. May 12, 2023;47(1):63. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Schnipper JL, Reyes Nieva H, Yoon C, Mallouk M, Mixon AS, Rennke S, et al. What works in medication reconciliation: an on-treatment and site analysis of the MARQUIS2 study. BMJ Qual Saf. Aug 2023;32(8):457-469. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Abu HO, Anatchkova MD, Erskine NA, Lewis J, McManus DD, Kiefe CI, et al. Are we "missing the big picture" in transitions of care? Perspectives of healthcare providers managing patients with unplanned hospitalization. Appl Nurs Res. Dec 2018;44:60-66. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Leung L. Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. J Family Med Prim Care. 2015;4(3):324-327. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Merrett F. Reflections on the Hawthorne effect. Educ Psychol. Jan 2006;26(1):143-146. [ CrossRef ]
• Mitchell M, Lavenberg JG, Trotta RL, Umscheid CA. Hourly rounding to improve nursing responsiveness: a systematic review. J Nurs Adm. Sep 2014;44(9):462-472. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]

Abbreviations

Edited by T de Azevedo Cardoso, G Eysenbach; submitted 06.11.23; peer-reviewed by C Jensen; comments to author 08.12.23; revised version received 16.01.24; accepted 17.02.24; published 04.04.24.

©Courtenay R Bruce, Steve Klahn, Lindsay Randle, Xin Li, Kelkar Sayali, Barbara Johnson, Melissa Gomez, Meagan Howard, Roberta Schwartz, Farzan Sasangohar. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 04.04.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.