the case study article

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 Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods

What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods

Published on May 8, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 20, 2023.

A case study is a detailed study of a specific subject, such as a person, group, place, event, organization, 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 analyze the case, other interesting articles.

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.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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

TipIf your research is more practical in nature and aims to simultaneously investigate an issue as you solve it, consider conducting action research instead.

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.

Example of an outlying case studyIn the 1960s the town of Roseto, Pennsylvania was discovered to have extremely low rates of heart disease compared to the US average. It became an important case study for understanding previously neglected causes of heart disease.

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

Example of a representative case studyIn the 1920s, two sociologists used Muncie, Indiana as a case study of a typical American city that supposedly exemplified the changing culture of the US at the time.

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.

Example of a mixed methods case studyFor a case study of a wind farm development in a rural area, you could collect quantitative data on employment rates and business revenue, collect qualitative data on local people’s perceptions and experiences, and analyze local and national media coverage of the development.

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

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

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 analyze 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.

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.

• Normal distribution
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Ecological validity

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

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 Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, November 20). What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved April 16, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/case-study/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, primary vs. secondary sources | difference & examples, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is action research | definition & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

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 15 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.

• Open access
• Published: 10 November 2020

Case study research for better evaluations of complex interventions: rationale and challenges

• Sara Paparini   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1909-2481 1 ,
• Judith Green 2 ,
• Chrysanthi Papoutsi 1 ,
• Jamie Murdoch 3 ,
• Mark Petticrew 4 ,
• Trish Greenhalgh 1 ,
• Benjamin Hanckel 5 &
• Sara Shaw 1  

BMC Medicine volume  18 , Article number:  301 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

17k Accesses

41 Citations

35 Altmetric

Metrics details

The need for better methods for evaluation in health research has been widely recognised. The ‘complexity turn’ has drawn attention to the limitations of relying on causal inference from randomised controlled trials alone for understanding whether, and under which conditions, interventions in complex systems improve health services or the public health, and what mechanisms might link interventions and outcomes. We argue that case study research—currently denigrated as poor evidence—is an under-utilised resource for not only providing evidence about context and transferability, but also for helping strengthen causal inferences when pathways between intervention and effects are likely to be non-linear.

Case study research, as an overall approach, is based on in-depth explorations of complex phenomena in their natural, or real-life, settings. Empirical case studies typically enable dynamic understanding of complex challenges and provide evidence about causal mechanisms and the necessary and sufficient conditions (contexts) for intervention implementation and effects. This is essential evidence not just for researchers concerned about internal and external validity, but also research users in policy and practice who need to know what the likely effects of complex programmes or interventions will be in their settings. The health sciences have much to learn from scholarship on case study methodology in the social sciences. However, there are multiple challenges in fully exploiting the potential learning from case study research. First are misconceptions that case study research can only provide exploratory or descriptive evidence. Second, there is little consensus about what a case study is, and considerable diversity in how empirical case studies are conducted and reported. Finally, as case study researchers typically (and appropriately) focus on thick description (that captures contextual detail), it can be challenging to identify the key messages related to intervention evaluation from case study reports.

Whilst the diversity of published case studies in health services and public health research is rich and productive, we recommend further clarity and specific methodological guidance for those reporting case study research for evaluation audiences.

Peer Review reports

The need for methodological development to address the most urgent challenges in health research has been well-documented. Many of the most pressing questions for public health research, where the focus is on system-level determinants [ 1 , 2 ], and for health services research, where provisions typically vary across sites and are provided through interlocking networks of services [ 3 ], require methodological approaches that can attend to complexity. The need for methodological advance has arisen, in part, as a result of the diminishing returns from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where they have been used to answer questions about the effects of interventions in complex systems [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. In conditions of complexity, there is limited value in maintaining the current orientation to experimental trial designs in the health sciences as providing ‘gold standard’ evidence of effect.

There are increasing calls for methodological pluralism [ 7 , 8 ], with the recognition that complex intervention and context are not easily or usefully separated (as is often the situation when using trial design), and that system interruptions may have effects that are not reducible to linear causal pathways between intervention and outcome. These calls are reflected in a shifting and contested discourse of trial design, seen with the emergence of realist [ 9 ], adaptive and hybrid (types 1, 2 and 3) [ 10 , 11 ] trials that blend studies of effectiveness with a close consideration of the contexts of implementation. Similarly, process evaluation has now become a core component of complex healthcare intervention trials, reflected in MRC guidance on how to explore implementation, causal mechanisms and context [ 12 ].

Evidence about the context of an intervention is crucial for questions of external validity. As Woolcock [ 4 ] notes, even if RCT designs are accepted as robust for maximising internal validity, questions of transferability (how well the intervention works in different contexts) and generalisability (how well the intervention can be scaled up) remain unanswered [ 5 , 13 ]. For research evidence to have impact on policy and systems organisation, and thus to improve population and patient health, there is an urgent need for better methods for strengthening external validity, including a better understanding of the relationship between intervention and context [ 14 ].

Policymakers, healthcare commissioners and other research users require credible evidence of relevance to their settings and populations [ 15 ], to perform what Rosengarten and Savransky [ 16 ] call ‘careful abstraction’ to the locales that matter for them. They also require robust evidence for understanding complex causal pathways. Case study research, currently under-utilised in public health and health services evaluation, can offer considerable potential for strengthening faith in both external and internal validity. For example, in an empirical case study of how the policy of free bus travel had specific health effects in London, UK, a quasi-experimental evaluation (led by JG) identified how important aspects of context (a good public transport system) and intervention (that it was universal) were necessary conditions for the observed effects, thus providing useful, actionable evidence for decision-makers in other contexts [ 17 ].

The overall approach of case study research is based on the in-depth exploration of complex phenomena in their natural, or ‘real-life’, settings. Empirical case studies typically enable dynamic understanding of complex challenges rather than restricting the focus on narrow problem delineations and simple fixes. Case study research is a diverse and somewhat contested field, with multiple definitions and perspectives grounded in different ways of viewing the world, and involving different combinations of methods. In this paper, we raise awareness of such plurality and highlight the contribution that case study research can make to the evaluation of complex system-level interventions. We review some of the challenges in exploiting the current evidence base from empirical case studies and conclude by recommending that further guidance and minimum reporting criteria for evaluation using case studies, appropriate for audiences in the health sciences, can enhance the take-up of evidence from case study research.

Case study research offers evidence about context, causal inference in complex systems and implementation

Well-conducted and described empirical case studies provide evidence on context, complexity and mechanisms for understanding how, where and why interventions have their observed effects. Recognition of the importance of context for understanding the relationships between interventions and outcomes is hardly new. In 1943, Canguilhem berated an over-reliance on experimental designs for determining universal physiological laws: ‘As if one could determine a phenomenon’s essence apart from its conditions! As if conditions were a mask or frame which changed neither the face nor the picture!’ ([ 18 ] p126). More recently, a concern with context has been expressed in health systems and public health research as part of what has been called the ‘complexity turn’ [ 1 ]: a recognition that many of the most enduring challenges for developing an evidence base require a consideration of system-level effects [ 1 ] and the conceptualisation of interventions as interruptions in systems [ 19 ].

The case study approach is widely recognised as offering an invaluable resource for understanding the dynamic and evolving influence of context on complex, system-level interventions [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]. Empirically, case studies can directly inform assessments of where, when, how and for whom interventions might be successfully implemented, by helping to specify the necessary and sufficient conditions under which interventions might have effects and to consolidate learning on how interdependencies, emergence and unpredictability can be managed to achieve and sustain desired effects. Case study research has the potential to address four objectives for improving research and reporting of context recently set out by guidance on taking account of context in population health research [ 24 ], that is to (1) improve the appropriateness of intervention development for specific contexts, (2) improve understanding of ‘how’ interventions work, (3) better understand how and why impacts vary across contexts and (4) ensure reports of intervention studies are most useful for decision-makers and researchers.

However, evaluations of complex healthcare interventions have arguably not exploited the full potential of case study research and can learn much from other disciplines. For evaluative research, exploratory case studies have had a traditional role of providing data on ‘process’, or initial ‘hypothesis-generating’ scoping, but might also have an increasing salience for explanatory aims. Across the social and political sciences, different kinds of case studies are undertaken to meet diverse aims (description, exploration or explanation) and across different scales (from small N qualitative studies that aim to elucidate processes, or provide thick description, to more systematic techniques designed for medium-to-large N cases).

Case studies with explanatory aims vary in terms of their positioning within mixed-methods projects, with designs including (but not restricted to) (1) single N of 1 studies of interventions in specific contexts, where the overall design is a case study that may incorporate one or more (randomised or not) comparisons over time and between variables within the case; (2) a series of cases conducted or synthesised to provide explanation from variations between cases; and (3) case studies of particular settings within RCT or quasi-experimental designs to explore variation in effects or implementation.

Detailed qualitative research (typically done as ‘case studies’ within process evaluations) provides evidence for the plausibility of mechanisms [ 25 ], offering theoretical generalisations for how interventions may function under different conditions. Although RCT designs reduce many threats to internal validity, the mechanisms of effect remain opaque, particularly when the causal pathways between ‘intervention’ and ‘effect’ are long and potentially non-linear: case study research has a more fundamental role here, in providing detailed observational evidence for causal claims [ 26 ] as well as producing a rich, nuanced picture of tensions and multiple perspectives [ 8 ].

Longitudinal or cross-case analysis may be best suited for evidence generation in system-level evaluative research. Turner [ 27 ], for instance, reflecting on the complex processes in major system change, has argued for the need for methods that integrate learning across cases, to develop theoretical knowledge that would enable inferences beyond the single case, and to develop generalisable theory about organisational and structural change in health systems. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) [ 28 ] is one such formal method for deriving causal claims, using set theory mathematics to integrate data from empirical case studies to answer questions about the configurations of causal pathways linking conditions to outcomes [ 29 , 30 ].

Nonetheless, the single N case study, too, provides opportunities for theoretical development [ 31 ], and theoretical generalisation or analytical refinement [ 32 ]. How ‘the case’ and ‘context’ are conceptualised is crucial here. Findings from the single case may seem to be confined to its intrinsic particularities in a specific and distinct context [ 33 ]. However, if such context is viewed as exemplifying wider social and political forces, the single case can be ‘telling’, rather than ‘typical’, and offer insight into a wider issue [ 34 ]. Internal comparisons within the case can offer rich possibilities for logical inferences about causation [ 17 ]. Further, case studies of any size can be used for theory testing through refutation [ 22 ]. The potential lies, then, in utilising the strengths and plurality of case study to support theory-driven research within different methodological paradigms.

Evaluation research in health has much to learn from a range of social sciences where case study methodology has been used to develop various kinds of causal inference. For instance, Gerring [ 35 ] expands on the within-case variations utilised to make causal claims. For Gerring [ 35 ], case studies come into their own with regard to invariant or strong causal claims (such as X is a necessary and/or sufficient condition for Y) rather than for probabilistic causal claims. For the latter (where experimental methods might have an advantage in estimating effect sizes), case studies offer evidence on mechanisms: from observations of X affecting Y, from process tracing or from pattern matching. Case studies also support the study of emergent causation, that is, the multiple interacting properties that account for particular and unexpected outcomes in complex systems, such as in healthcare [ 8 ].

Finally, efficacy (or beliefs about efficacy) is not the only contributor to intervention uptake, with a range of organisational and policy contingencies affecting whether an intervention is likely to be rolled out in practice. Case study research is, therefore, invaluable for learning about contextual contingencies and identifying the conditions necessary for interventions to become normalised (i.e. implemented routinely) in practice [ 36 ].

The challenges in exploiting evidence from case study research

At present, there are significant challenges in exploiting the benefits of case study research in evaluative health research, which relate to status, definition and reporting. Case study research has been marginalised at the bottom of an evidence hierarchy, seen to offer little by way of explanatory power, if nonetheless useful for adding descriptive data on process or providing useful illustrations for policymakers [ 37 ]. This is an opportune moment to revisit this low status. As health researchers are increasingly charged with evaluating ‘natural experiments’—the use of face masks in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic being a recent example [ 38 ]—rather than interventions that take place in settings that can be controlled, research approaches using methods to strengthen causal inference that does not require randomisation become more relevant.

A second challenge for improving the use of case study evidence in evaluative health research is that, as we have seen, what is meant by ‘case study’ varies widely, not only across but also within disciplines. There is indeed little consensus amongst methodologists as to how to define ‘a case study’. Definitions focus, variously, on small sample size or lack of control over the intervention (e.g. [ 39 ] p194), on in-depth study and context [ 40 , 41 ], on the logic of inference used [ 35 ] or on distinct research strategies which incorporate a number of methods to address questions of ‘how’ and ‘why’ [ 42 ]. Moreover, definitions developed for specific disciplines do not capture the range of ways in which case study research is carried out across disciplines. Multiple definitions of case study reflect the richness and diversity of the approach. However, evidence suggests that a lack of consensus across methodologists results in some of the limitations of published reports of empirical case studies [ 43 , 44 ]. Hyett and colleagues [ 43 ], for instance, reviewing reports in qualitative journals, found little match between methodological definitions of case study research and how authors used the term.

This raises the third challenge we identify that case study reports are typically not written in ways that are accessible or useful for the evaluation research community and policymakers. Case studies may not appear in journals widely read by those in the health sciences, either because space constraints preclude the reporting of rich, thick descriptions, or because of the reported lack of willingness of some biomedical journals to publish research that uses qualitative methods [ 45 ], signalling the persistence of the aforementioned evidence hierarchy. Where they do, however, the term ‘case study’ is used to indicate, interchangeably, a qualitative study, an N of 1 sample, or a multi-method, in-depth analysis of one example from a population of phenomena. Definitions of what constitutes the ‘case’ are frequently lacking and appear to be used as a synonym for the settings in which the research is conducted. Despite offering insights for evaluation, the primary aims may not have been evaluative, so the implications may not be explicitly drawn out. Indeed, some case study reports might properly be aiming for thick description without necessarily seeking to inform about context or causality.

Acknowledging plurality and developing guidance

We recognise that definitional and methodological plurality is not only inevitable, but also a necessary and creative reflection of the very different epistemological and disciplinary origins of health researchers, and the aims they have in doing and reporting case study research. Indeed, to provide some clarity, Thomas [ 46 ] has suggested a typology of subject/purpose/approach/process for classifying aims (e.g. evaluative or exploratory), sample rationale and selection and methods for data generation of case studies. We also recognise that the diversity of methods used in case study research, and the necessary focus on narrative reporting, does not lend itself to straightforward development of formal quality or reporting criteria.

Existing checklists for reporting case study research from the social sciences—for example Lincoln and Guba’s [ 47 ] and Stake’s [ 33 ]—are primarily orientated to the quality of narrative produced, and the extent to which they encapsulate thick description, rather than the more pragmatic issues of implications for intervention effects. Those designed for clinical settings, such as the CARE (CAse REports) guidelines, provide specific reporting guidelines for medical case reports about single, or small groups of patients [ 48 ], not for case study research.

The Design of Case Study Research in Health Care (DESCARTE) model [ 44 ] suggests a series of questions to be asked of a case study researcher (including clarity about the philosophy underpinning their research), study design (with a focus on case definition) and analysis (to improve process). The model resembles toolkits for enhancing the quality and robustness of qualitative and mixed-methods research reporting, and it is usefully open-ended and non-prescriptive. However, even if it does include some reflections on context, the model does not fully address aspects of context, logic and causal inference that are perhaps most relevant for evaluative research in health.

Hence, for evaluative research where the aim is to report empirical findings in ways that are intended to be pragmatically useful for health policy and practice, this may be an opportune time to consider how to best navigate plurality around what is (minimally) important to report when publishing empirical case studies, especially with regards to the complex relationships between context and interventions, information that case study research is well placed to provide.

The conventional scientific quest for certainty, predictability and linear causality (maximised in RCT designs) has to be augmented by the study of uncertainty, unpredictability and emergent causality [ 8 ] in complex systems. This will require methodological pluralism, and openness to broadening the evidence base to better understand both causality in and the transferability of system change intervention [ 14 , 20 , 23 , 25 ]. Case study research evidence is essential, yet is currently under exploited in the health sciences. If evaluative health research is to move beyond the current impasse on methods for understanding interventions as interruptions in complex systems, we need to consider in more detail how researchers can conduct and report empirical case studies which do aim to elucidate the contextual factors which interact with interventions to produce particular effects. To this end, supported by the UK’s Medical Research Council, we are embracing the challenge to develop guidance for case study researchers studying complex interventions. Following a meta-narrative review of the literature, we are planning a Delphi study to inform guidance that will, at minimum, cover the value of case study research for evaluating the interrelationship between context and complex system-level interventions; for situating and defining ‘the case’, and generalising from case studies; as well as provide specific guidance on conducting, analysing and reporting case study research. Our hope is that such guidance can support researchers evaluating interventions in complex systems to better exploit the diversity and richness of case study research.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable (article based on existing available academic publications)

Abbreviations

Qualitative comparative analysis

Quasi-experimental design

Randomised controlled trial

Diez Roux AV. Complex systems thinking and current impasses in health disparities research. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(9):1627–34.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ogilvie D, Mitchell R, Mutrie N, M P, Platt S. Evaluating health effects of transport interventions: methodologic case study. Am J Prev Med 2006;31:118–126.

Walshe C. The evaluation of complex interventions in palliative care: an exploration of the potential of case study research strategies. Palliat Med. 2011;25(8):774–81.

Woolcock M. Using case studies to explore the external validity of ‘complex’ development interventions. Evaluation. 2013;19:229–48.

Cartwright N. Are RCTs the gold standard? BioSocieties. 2007;2(1):11–20.

Deaton A, Cartwright N. Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Soc Sci Med. 2018;210:2–21.

Salway S, Green J. Towards a critical complex systems approach to public health. Crit Public Health. 2017;27(5):523–4.

Greenhalgh T, Papoutsi C. Studying complexity in health services research: desperately seeking an overdue paradigm shift. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):95.

Bonell C, Warren E, Fletcher A. Realist trials and the testing of context-mechanism-outcome configurations: a response to Van Belle et al. Trials. 2016;17:478.

Pallmann P, Bedding AW, Choodari-Oskooei B. Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them. BMC Med. 2018;16:29.

Curran G, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne J, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012;50(3):217–26. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812 .

Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015 [cited 2020 Jun 27];350. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h1258 .

Evans RE, Craig P, Hoddinott P, Littlecott H, Moore L, Murphy S, et al. When and how do ‘effective’ interventions need to be adapted and/or re-evaluated in new contexts? The need for guidance. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2019;73(6):481–2.

Shoveller J. A critical examination of representations of context within research on population health interventions. Crit Public Health. 2016;26(5):487–500.

Treweek S, Zwarenstein M. Making trials matter: pragmatic and explanatory trials and the problem of applicability. Trials. 2009;10(1):37.

Rosengarten M, Savransky M. A careful biomedicine? Generalization and abstraction in RCTs. Crit Public Health. 2019;29(2):181–91.

Green J, Roberts H, Petticrew M, Steinbach R, Goodman A, Jones A, et al. Integrating quasi-experimental and inductive designs in evaluation: a case study of the impact of free bus travel on public health. Evaluation. 2015;21(4):391–406.

Canguilhem G. The normal and the pathological. New York: Zone Books; 1991. (1949).

Google Scholar  

Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Theorising interventions as events in systems. Am J Community Psychol. 2009;43:267–76.

King G, Keohane RO, Verba S. Designing social inquiry: scientific inference in qualitative research: Princeton University Press; 1994.

Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581–629.

Yin R. Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health Serv Res. 1999;34(5 Pt 2):1209.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Raine R, Fitzpatrick R, Barratt H, Bevan G, Black N, Boaden R, et al. Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in health care and public health. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2016 [cited 2020 Jun 30];4(16). Available from: https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr/hsdr04160#/abstract .

Craig P, Di Ruggiero E, Frohlich KL, E M, White M, Group CCGA. Taking account of context in population health intervention research: guidance for producers, users and funders of research. NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre; 2018.

Grant RL, Hood R. Complex systems, explanation and policy: implications of the crisis of replication for public health research. Crit Public Health. 2017;27(5):525–32.

Mahoney J. Strategies of causal inference in small-N analysis. Sociol Methods Res. 2000;4:387–424.

Turner S. Major system change: a management and organisational research perspective. In: Rosalind Raine, Ray Fitzpatrick, Helen Barratt, Gywn Bevan, Nick Black, Ruth Boaden, et al. Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in health care and public health. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2016;4(16) 2016. https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr04160.

Ragin CC. Using qualitative comparative analysis to study causal complexity. Health Serv Res. 1999;34(5 Pt 2):1225.

Hanckel B, Petticrew M, Thomas J, Green J. Protocol for a systematic review of the use of qualitative comparative analysis for evaluative questions in public health research. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):252.

Schneider CQ, Wagemann C. Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: a guide to qualitative comparative analysis: Cambridge University Press; 2012. 369 p.

Flyvbjerg B. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq. 2006;12:219–45.

Tsoukas H. Craving for generality and small-N studies: a Wittgensteinian approach towards the epistemology of the particular in organization and management studies. Sage Handb Organ Res Methods. 2009:285–301.

Stake RE. The art of case study research. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 1995.

Mitchell JC. Typicality and the case study. Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct. Vol. 238241. 1984.

Gerring J. What is a case study and what is it good for? Am Polit Sci Rev. 2004;98(2):341–54.

May C, Mort M, Williams T, F M, Gask L. Health technology assessment in its local contexts: studies of telehealthcare. Soc Sci Med 2003;57:697–710.

McGill E. Trading quality for relevance: non-health decision-makers’ use of evidence on the social determinants of health. BMJ Open. 2015;5(4):007053.

Greenhalgh T. We can’t be 100% sure face masks work – but that shouldn’t stop us wearing them | Trish Greenhalgh. The Guardian. 2020 [cited 2020 Jun 27]; Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/05/face-masks-coronavirus .

Hammersley M. So, what are case studies? In: What’s wrong with ethnography? New York: Routledge; 1992.

Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):100.

Luck L, Jackson D, Usher K. Case study: a bridge across the paradigms. Nurs Inq. 2006;13(2):103–9.

Yin RK. Case study research and applications: design and methods: Sage; 2017.

Hyett N, A K, Dickson-Swift V. Methodology or method? A critical review of qualitative case study reports. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-Being. 2014;9:23606.

Carolan CM, Forbat L, Smith A. Developing the DESCARTE model: the design of case study research in health care. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(5):626–39.

Greenhalgh T, Annandale E, Ashcroft R, Barlow J, Black N, Bleakley A, et al. An open letter to the BMJ editors on qualitative research. Bmj. 2016;352.

Thomas G. A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition, discourse, and structure. Qual Inq. 2011;17(6):511–21.

Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Judging the quality of case study reports. Int J Qual Stud Educ. 1990;3(1):53–9.

Riley DS, Barber MS, Kienle GS, Aronson JK, Schoen-Angerer T, Tugwell P, et al. CARE guidelines for case reports: explanation and elaboration document. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;89:218–35.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

This work was funded by the Medical Research Council - MRC Award MR/S014632/1 HCS: Case study, Context and Complex interventions (TRIPLE C). SP was additionally funded by the University of Oxford's Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Sara Paparini, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Trish Greenhalgh & Sara Shaw

Wellcome Centre for Cultures & Environments of Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

Judith Green

School of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

Jamie Murdoch

Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicin, London, UK

Mark Petticrew

Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University, Penrith, Australia

Benjamin Hanckel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JG, MP, SP, JM, TG, CP and SS drafted the initial paper; all authors contributed to the drafting of the final version, and read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara Paparini .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Paparini, S., Green, J., Papoutsi, C. et al. Case study research for better evaluations of complex interventions: rationale and challenges. BMC Med 18 , 301 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01777-6

Download citation

Received : 03 July 2020

Accepted : 07 September 2020

Published : 10 November 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01777-6

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Qualitative
• Case studies
• Mixed-method
• Public health
• Health services research
• Interventions

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

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

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

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

How to Approach Writing a Case Study Research Paper

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

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

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

I.  Introduction

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

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

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

II.  Literature Review

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

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

III.  Method

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV.  Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V.  Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Problems to Avoid

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

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

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

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

Writing Tip

At Least Five Misconceptions about Case Study Research

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Next: Writing a Field Report >>
• Last Updated: Mar 6, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

Research Writing and Analysis

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

Writing a Case Study

What is a case study?

A Case study is: 

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

What are the different types of case studies?

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

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

Who are your case study participants?

What is triangulation ? 

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

How to write a Case Study?

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

Was this resource helpful?

• << Previous: Thematic Data Analysis in Qualitative Design
• Next: Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS) >>
• Last Updated: Apr 12, 2024 11:40 AM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/researchtools

Log in using your username and password

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

You are here

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

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

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

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

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

What is it?

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

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

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

Benefits and limitations of case studies

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

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

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

Examples of case studies

Example 1: nurses’ paediatric pain management practices.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Gustafsson J
• Calanzaro M
• Sandelowski M

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

• Open access
• Published: 27 June 2011

The case study approach

• Sarah Crowe 1 ,
• Kathrin Cresswell 2 ,
• Ann Robertson 2 ,
• Guro Huby 3 ,
• Anthony Avery 1 &
• Aziz Sheikh 2  

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume  11 , Article number:  100 ( 2011 ) Cite this article

768k Accesses

1033 Citations

37 Altmetric

Metrics details

The case study approach allows in-depth, multi-faceted explorations of complex issues in their real-life settings. The value of the case study approach is well recognised in the fields of business, law and policy, but somewhat less so in health services research. Based on our experiences of conducting several health-related case studies, we reflect on the different types of case study design, the specific research questions this approach can help answer, the data sources that tend to be used, and the particular advantages and disadvantages of employing this methodological approach. The paper concludes with key pointers to aid those designing and appraising proposals for conducting case study research, and a checklist to help readers assess the quality of case study reports.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The case study approach is particularly useful to employ when there is a need to obtain an in-depth appreciation of an issue, event or phenomenon of interest, in its natural real-life context. Our aim in writing this piece is to provide insights into when to consider employing this approach and an overview of key methodological considerations in relation to the design, planning, analysis, interpretation and reporting of case studies.

The illustrative 'grand round', 'case report' and 'case series' have a long tradition in clinical practice and research. Presenting detailed critiques, typically of one or more patients, aims to provide insights into aspects of the clinical case and, in doing so, illustrate broader lessons that may be learnt. In research, the conceptually-related case study approach can be used, for example, to describe in detail a patient's episode of care, explore professional attitudes to and experiences of a new policy initiative or service development or more generally to 'investigate contemporary phenomena within its real-life context' [ 1 ]. Based on our experiences of conducting a range of case studies, we reflect on when to consider using this approach, discuss the key steps involved and illustrate, with examples, some of the practical challenges of attaining an in-depth understanding of a 'case' as an integrated whole. In keeping with previously published work, we acknowledge the importance of theory to underpin the design, selection, conduct and interpretation of case studies[ 2 ]. In so doing, we make passing reference to the different epistemological approaches used in case study research by key theoreticians and methodologists in this field of enquiry.

This paper is structured around the following main questions: What is a case study? What are case studies used for? How are case studies conducted? What are the potential pitfalls and how can these be avoided? We draw in particular on four of our own recently published examples of case studies (see Tables 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 ) and those of others to illustrate our discussion[ 3 – 7 ].

What is a case study?

A case study is a research approach that is used to generate an in-depth, multi-faceted understanding of a complex issue in its real-life context. It is an established research design that is used extensively in a wide variety of disciplines, particularly in the social sciences. A case study can be defined in a variety of ways (Table 5 ), the central tenet being the need to explore an event or phenomenon in depth and in its natural context. It is for this reason sometimes referred to as a "naturalistic" design; this is in contrast to an "experimental" design (such as a randomised controlled trial) in which the investigator seeks to exert control over and manipulate the variable(s) of interest.

Stake's work has been particularly influential in defining the case study approach to scientific enquiry. He has helpfully characterised three main types of case study: intrinsic , instrumental and collective [ 8 ]. An intrinsic case study is typically undertaken to learn about a unique phenomenon. The researcher should define the uniqueness of the phenomenon, which distinguishes it from all others. In contrast, the instrumental case study uses a particular case (some of which may be better than others) to gain a broader appreciation of an issue or phenomenon. The collective case study involves studying multiple cases simultaneously or sequentially in an attempt to generate a still broader appreciation of a particular issue.

These are however not necessarily mutually exclusive categories. In the first of our examples (Table 1 ), we undertook an intrinsic case study to investigate the issue of recruitment of minority ethnic people into the specific context of asthma research studies, but it developed into a instrumental case study through seeking to understand the issue of recruitment of these marginalised populations more generally, generating a number of the findings that are potentially transferable to other disease contexts[ 3 ]. In contrast, the other three examples (see Tables 2 , 3 and 4 ) employed collective case study designs to study the introduction of workforce reconfiguration in primary care, the implementation of electronic health records into hospitals, and to understand the ways in which healthcare students learn about patient safety considerations[ 4 – 6 ]. Although our study focusing on the introduction of General Practitioners with Specialist Interests (Table 2 ) was explicitly collective in design (four contrasting primary care organisations were studied), is was also instrumental in that this particular professional group was studied as an exemplar of the more general phenomenon of workforce redesign[ 4 ].

What are case studies used for?

According to Yin, case studies can be used to explain, describe or explore events or phenomena in the everyday contexts in which they occur[ 1 ]. These can, for example, help to understand and explain causal links and pathways resulting from a new policy initiative or service development (see Tables 2 and 3 , for example)[ 1 ]. In contrast to experimental designs, which seek to test a specific hypothesis through deliberately manipulating the environment (like, for example, in a randomised controlled trial giving a new drug to randomly selected individuals and then comparing outcomes with controls),[ 9 ] the case study approach lends itself well to capturing information on more explanatory ' how ', 'what' and ' why ' questions, such as ' how is the intervention being implemented and received on the ground?'. The case study approach can offer additional insights into what gaps exist in its delivery or why one implementation strategy might be chosen over another. This in turn can help develop or refine theory, as shown in our study of the teaching of patient safety in undergraduate curricula (Table 4 )[ 6 , 10 ]. Key questions to consider when selecting the most appropriate study design are whether it is desirable or indeed possible to undertake a formal experimental investigation in which individuals and/or organisations are allocated to an intervention or control arm? Or whether the wish is to obtain a more naturalistic understanding of an issue? The former is ideally studied using a controlled experimental design, whereas the latter is more appropriately studied using a case study design.

Case studies may be approached in different ways depending on the epistemological standpoint of the researcher, that is, whether they take a critical (questioning one's own and others' assumptions), interpretivist (trying to understand individual and shared social meanings) or positivist approach (orientating towards the criteria of natural sciences, such as focusing on generalisability considerations) (Table 6 ). Whilst such a schema can be conceptually helpful, it may be appropriate to draw on more than one approach in any case study, particularly in the context of conducting health services research. Doolin has, for example, noted that in the context of undertaking interpretative case studies, researchers can usefully draw on a critical, reflective perspective which seeks to take into account the wider social and political environment that has shaped the case[ 11 ].

How are case studies conducted?

Here, we focus on the main stages of research activity when planning and undertaking a case study; the crucial stages are: defining the case; selecting the case(s); collecting and analysing the data; interpreting data; and reporting the findings.

Defining the case

Carefully formulated research question(s), informed by the existing literature and a prior appreciation of the theoretical issues and setting(s), are all important in appropriately and succinctly defining the case[ 8 , 12 ]. Crucially, each case should have a pre-defined boundary which clarifies the nature and time period covered by the case study (i.e. its scope, beginning and end), the relevant social group, organisation or geographical area of interest to the investigator, the types of evidence to be collected, and the priorities for data collection and analysis (see Table 7 )[ 1 ]. A theory driven approach to defining the case may help generate knowledge that is potentially transferable to a range of clinical contexts and behaviours; using theory is also likely to result in a more informed appreciation of, for example, how and why interventions have succeeded or failed[ 13 ].

For example, in our evaluation of the introduction of electronic health records in English hospitals (Table 3 ), we defined our cases as the NHS Trusts that were receiving the new technology[ 5 ]. Our focus was on how the technology was being implemented. However, if the primary research interest had been on the social and organisational dimensions of implementation, we might have defined our case differently as a grouping of healthcare professionals (e.g. doctors and/or nurses). The precise beginning and end of the case may however prove difficult to define. Pursuing this same example, when does the process of implementation and adoption of an electronic health record system really begin or end? Such judgements will inevitably be influenced by a range of factors, including the research question, theory of interest, the scope and richness of the gathered data and the resources available to the research team.

Selecting the case(s)

The decision on how to select the case(s) to study is a very important one that merits some reflection. In an intrinsic case study, the case is selected on its own merits[ 8 ]. The case is selected not because it is representative of other cases, but because of its uniqueness, which is of genuine interest to the researchers. This was, for example, the case in our study of the recruitment of minority ethnic participants into asthma research (Table 1 ) as our earlier work had demonstrated the marginalisation of minority ethnic people with asthma, despite evidence of disproportionate asthma morbidity[ 14 , 15 ]. In another example of an intrinsic case study, Hellstrom et al.[ 16 ] studied an elderly married couple living with dementia to explore how dementia had impacted on their understanding of home, their everyday life and their relationships.

For an instrumental case study, selecting a "typical" case can work well[ 8 ]. In contrast to the intrinsic case study, the particular case which is chosen is of less importance than selecting a case that allows the researcher to investigate an issue or phenomenon. For example, in order to gain an understanding of doctors' responses to health policy initiatives, Som undertook an instrumental case study interviewing clinicians who had a range of responsibilities for clinical governance in one NHS acute hospital trust[ 17 ]. Sampling a "deviant" or "atypical" case may however prove even more informative, potentially enabling the researcher to identify causal processes, generate hypotheses and develop theory.

In collective or multiple case studies, a number of cases are carefully selected. This offers the advantage of allowing comparisons to be made across several cases and/or replication. Choosing a "typical" case may enable the findings to be generalised to theory (i.e. analytical generalisation) or to test theory by replicating the findings in a second or even a third case (i.e. replication logic)[ 1 ]. Yin suggests two or three literal replications (i.e. predicting similar results) if the theory is straightforward and five or more if the theory is more subtle. However, critics might argue that selecting 'cases' in this way is insufficiently reflexive and ill-suited to the complexities of contemporary healthcare organisations.

The selected case study site(s) should allow the research team access to the group of individuals, the organisation, the processes or whatever else constitutes the chosen unit of analysis for the study. Access is therefore a central consideration; the researcher needs to come to know the case study site(s) well and to work cooperatively with them. Selected cases need to be not only interesting but also hospitable to the inquiry [ 8 ] if they are to be informative and answer the research question(s). Case study sites may also be pre-selected for the researcher, with decisions being influenced by key stakeholders. For example, our selection of case study sites in the evaluation of the implementation and adoption of electronic health record systems (see Table 3 ) was heavily influenced by NHS Connecting for Health, the government agency that was responsible for overseeing the National Programme for Information Technology (NPfIT)[ 5 ]. This prominent stakeholder had already selected the NHS sites (through a competitive bidding process) to be early adopters of the electronic health record systems and had negotiated contracts that detailed the deployment timelines.

It is also important to consider in advance the likely burden and risks associated with participation for those who (or the site(s) which) comprise the case study. Of particular importance is the obligation for the researcher to think through the ethical implications of the study (e.g. the risk of inadvertently breaching anonymity or confidentiality) and to ensure that potential participants/participating sites are provided with sufficient information to make an informed choice about joining the study. The outcome of providing this information might be that the emotive burden associated with participation, or the organisational disruption associated with supporting the fieldwork, is considered so high that the individuals or sites decide against participation.

In our example of evaluating implementations of electronic health record systems, given the restricted number of early adopter sites available to us, we sought purposively to select a diverse range of implementation cases among those that were available[ 5 ]. We chose a mixture of teaching, non-teaching and Foundation Trust hospitals, and examples of each of the three electronic health record systems procured centrally by the NPfIT. At one recruited site, it quickly became apparent that access was problematic because of competing demands on that organisation. Recognising the importance of full access and co-operative working for generating rich data, the research team decided not to pursue work at that site and instead to focus on other recruited sites.

Collecting the data

In order to develop a thorough understanding of the case, the case study approach usually involves the collection of multiple sources of evidence, using a range of quantitative (e.g. questionnaires, audits and analysis of routinely collected healthcare data) and more commonly qualitative techniques (e.g. interviews, focus groups and observations). The use of multiple sources of data (data triangulation) has been advocated as a way of increasing the internal validity of a study (i.e. the extent to which the method is appropriate to answer the research question)[ 8 , 18 – 21 ]. An underlying assumption is that data collected in different ways should lead to similar conclusions, and approaching the same issue from different angles can help develop a holistic picture of the phenomenon (Table 2 )[ 4 ].

Brazier and colleagues used a mixed-methods case study approach to investigate the impact of a cancer care programme[ 22 ]. Here, quantitative measures were collected with questionnaires before, and five months after, the start of the intervention which did not yield any statistically significant results. Qualitative interviews with patients however helped provide an insight into potentially beneficial process-related aspects of the programme, such as greater, perceived patient involvement in care. The authors reported how this case study approach provided a number of contextual factors likely to influence the effectiveness of the intervention and which were not likely to have been obtained from quantitative methods alone.

In collective or multiple case studies, data collection needs to be flexible enough to allow a detailed description of each individual case to be developed (e.g. the nature of different cancer care programmes), before considering the emerging similarities and differences in cross-case comparisons (e.g. to explore why one programme is more effective than another). It is important that data sources from different cases are, where possible, broadly comparable for this purpose even though they may vary in nature and depth.

Analysing, interpreting and reporting case studies

Making sense and offering a coherent interpretation of the typically disparate sources of data (whether qualitative alone or together with quantitative) is far from straightforward. Repeated reviewing and sorting of the voluminous and detail-rich data are integral to the process of analysis. In collective case studies, it is helpful to analyse data relating to the individual component cases first, before making comparisons across cases. Attention needs to be paid to variations within each case and, where relevant, the relationship between different causes, effects and outcomes[ 23 ]. Data will need to be organised and coded to allow the key issues, both derived from the literature and emerging from the dataset, to be easily retrieved at a later stage. An initial coding frame can help capture these issues and can be applied systematically to the whole dataset with the aid of a qualitative data analysis software package.

The Framework approach is a practical approach, comprising of five stages (familiarisation; identifying a thematic framework; indexing; charting; mapping and interpretation) , to managing and analysing large datasets particularly if time is limited, as was the case in our study of recruitment of South Asians into asthma research (Table 1 )[ 3 , 24 ]. Theoretical frameworks may also play an important role in integrating different sources of data and examining emerging themes. For example, we drew on a socio-technical framework to help explain the connections between different elements - technology; people; and the organisational settings within which they worked - in our study of the introduction of electronic health record systems (Table 3 )[ 5 ]. Our study of patient safety in undergraduate curricula drew on an evaluation-based approach to design and analysis, which emphasised the importance of the academic, organisational and practice contexts through which students learn (Table 4 )[ 6 ].

Case study findings can have implications both for theory development and theory testing. They may establish, strengthen or weaken historical explanations of a case and, in certain circumstances, allow theoretical (as opposed to statistical) generalisation beyond the particular cases studied[ 12 ]. These theoretical lenses should not, however, constitute a strait-jacket and the cases should not be "forced to fit" the particular theoretical framework that is being employed.

When reporting findings, it is important to provide the reader with enough contextual information to understand the processes that were followed and how the conclusions were reached. In a collective case study, researchers may choose to present the findings from individual cases separately before amalgamating across cases. Care must be taken to ensure the anonymity of both case sites and individual participants (if agreed in advance) by allocating appropriate codes or withholding descriptors. In the example given in Table 3 , we decided against providing detailed information on the NHS sites and individual participants in order to avoid the risk of inadvertent disclosure of identities[ 5 , 25 ].

What are the potential pitfalls and how can these be avoided?

The case study approach is, as with all research, not without its limitations. When investigating the formal and informal ways undergraduate students learn about patient safety (Table 4 ), for example, we rapidly accumulated a large quantity of data. The volume of data, together with the time restrictions in place, impacted on the depth of analysis that was possible within the available resources. This highlights a more general point of the importance of avoiding the temptation to collect as much data as possible; adequate time also needs to be set aside for data analysis and interpretation of what are often highly complex datasets.

Case study research has sometimes been criticised for lacking scientific rigour and providing little basis for generalisation (i.e. producing findings that may be transferable to other settings)[ 1 ]. There are several ways to address these concerns, including: the use of theoretical sampling (i.e. drawing on a particular conceptual framework); respondent validation (i.e. participants checking emerging findings and the researcher's interpretation, and providing an opinion as to whether they feel these are accurate); and transparency throughout the research process (see Table 8 )[ 8 , 18 – 21 , 23 , 26 ]. Transparency can be achieved by describing in detail the steps involved in case selection, data collection, the reasons for the particular methods chosen, and the researcher's background and level of involvement (i.e. being explicit about how the researcher has influenced data collection and interpretation). Seeking potential, alternative explanations, and being explicit about how interpretations and conclusions were reached, help readers to judge the trustworthiness of the case study report. Stake provides a critique checklist for a case study report (Table 9 )[ 8 ].

Conclusions

The case study approach allows, amongst other things, critical events, interventions, policy developments and programme-based service reforms to be studied in detail in a real-life context. It should therefore be considered when an experimental design is either inappropriate to answer the research questions posed or impossible to undertake. Considering the frequency with which implementations of innovations are now taking place in healthcare settings and how well the case study approach lends itself to in-depth, complex health service research, we believe this approach should be more widely considered by researchers. Though inherently challenging, the research case study can, if carefully conceptualised and thoughtfully undertaken and reported, yield powerful insights into many important aspects of health and healthcare delivery.

Yin RK: Case study research, design and method. 2009, London: Sage Publications Ltd., 4

Google Scholar  

Keen J, Packwood T: Qualitative research; case study evaluation. BMJ. 1995, 311: 444-446.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Sheikh A, Halani L, Bhopal R, Netuveli G, Partridge M, Car J, et al: Facilitating the Recruitment of Minority Ethnic People into Research: Qualitative Case Study of South Asians and Asthma. PLoS Med. 2009, 6 (10): 1-11.

Article   Google Scholar  

Pinnock H, Huby G, Powell A, Kielmann T, Price D, Williams S, et al: The process of planning, development and implementation of a General Practitioner with a Special Interest service in Primary Care Organisations in England and Wales: a comparative prospective case study. Report for the National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R&D (NCCSDO). 2008, [ http://www.sdo.nihr.ac.uk/files/project/99-final-report.pdf ]

Robertson A, Cresswell K, Takian A, Petrakaki D, Crowe S, Cornford T, et al: Prospective evaluation of the implementation and adoption of NHS Connecting for Health's national electronic health record in secondary care in England: interim findings. BMJ. 2010, 41: c4564-

Pearson P, Steven A, Howe A, Sheikh A, Ashcroft D, Smith P, the Patient Safety Education Study Group: Learning about patient safety: organisational context and culture in the education of healthcare professionals. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010, 15: 4-10. 10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009052.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

van Harten WH, Casparie TF, Fisscher OA: The evaluation of the introduction of a quality management system: a process-oriented case study in a large rehabilitation hospital. Health Policy. 2002, 60 (1): 17-37. 10.1016/S0168-8510(01)00187-7.

Stake RE: The art of case study research. 1995, London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Sheikh A, Smeeth L, Ashcroft R: Randomised controlled trials in primary care: scope and application. Br J Gen Pract. 2002, 52 (482): 746-51.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

King G, Keohane R, Verba S: Designing Social Inquiry. 1996, Princeton: Princeton University Press

Doolin B: Information technology as disciplinary technology: being critical in interpretative research on information systems. Journal of Information Technology. 1998, 13: 301-311. 10.1057/jit.1998.8.

George AL, Bennett A: Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. 2005, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Eccles M, the Improved Clinical Effectiveness through Behavioural Research Group (ICEBeRG): Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions. Implementation Science. 2006, 1: 1-8. 10.1186/1748-5908-1-1.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Netuveli G, Hurwitz B, Levy M, Fletcher M, Barnes G, Durham SR, Sheikh A: Ethnic variations in UK asthma frequency, morbidity, and health-service use: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2005, 365 (9456): 312-7.

Sheikh A, Panesar SS, Lasserson T, Netuveli G: Recruitment of ethnic minorities to asthma studies. Thorax. 2004, 59 (7): 634-

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hellström I, Nolan M, Lundh U: 'We do things together': A case study of 'couplehood' in dementia. Dementia. 2005, 4: 7-22. 10.1177/1471301205049188.

Som CV: Nothing seems to have changed, nothing seems to be changing and perhaps nothing will change in the NHS: doctors' response to clinical governance. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 2005, 18: 463-477. 10.1108/09513550510608903.

Lincoln Y, Guba E: Naturalistic inquiry. 1985, Newbury Park: Sage Publications

Barbour RS: Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?. BMJ. 2001, 322: 1115-1117. 10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115.

Mays N, Pope C: Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000, 320: 50-52. 10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50.

Mason J: Qualitative researching. 2002, London: Sage

Brazier A, Cooke K, Moravan V: Using Mixed Methods for Evaluating an Integrative Approach to Cancer Care: A Case Study. Integr Cancer Ther. 2008, 7: 5-17. 10.1177/1534735407313395.

Miles MB, Huberman M: Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 1994, CA: Sage Publications Inc., 2

Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N: Analysing qualitative data. Qualitative research in health care. BMJ. 2000, 320: 114-116. 10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114.

Cresswell KM, Worth A, Sheikh A: Actor-Network Theory and its role in understanding the implementation of information technology developments in healthcare. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010, 10 (1): 67-10.1186/1472-6947-10-67.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Malterud K: Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet. 2001, 358: 483-488. 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05627-6.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Yin R: Case study research: design and methods. 1994, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing, 2

Yin R: Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health Serv Res. 1999, 34: 1209-1224.

Green J, Thorogood N: Qualitative methods for health research. 2009, Los Angeles: Sage, 2

Howcroft D, Trauth E: Handbook of Critical Information Systems Research, Theory and Application. 2005, Cheltenham, UK: Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar

Book   Google Scholar  

Blakie N: Approaches to Social Enquiry. 1993, Cambridge: Polity Press

Doolin B: Power and resistance in the implementation of a medical management information system. Info Systems J. 2004, 14: 343-362. 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00176.x.

Bloomfield BP, Best A: Management consultants: systems development, power and the translation of problems. Sociological Review. 1992, 40: 533-560.

Shanks G, Parr A: Positivist, single case study research in information systems: A critical analysis. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems. 2003, Naples

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/100/prepub

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the participants and colleagues who contributed to the individual case studies that we have drawn on. This work received no direct funding, but it has been informed by projects funded by Asthma UK, the NHS Service Delivery Organisation, NHS Connecting for Health Evaluation Programme, and Patient Safety Research Portfolio. We would also like to thank the expert reviewers for their insightful and constructive feedback. Our thanks are also due to Dr. Allison Worth who commented on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Division of Primary Care, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

Sarah Crowe & Anthony Avery

Centre for Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Kathrin Cresswell, Ann Robertson & Aziz Sheikh

School of Health in Social Science, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Crowe .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

AS conceived this article. SC, KC and AR wrote this paper with GH, AA and AS all commenting on various drafts. SC and AS are guarantors.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A. et al. The case study approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 11 , 100 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100

Download citation

Received : 29 November 2010

Accepted : 27 June 2011

Published : 27 June 2011

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Case Study Approach
• Electronic Health Record System
• Case Study Design
• Case Study Site
• Case Study Report

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Case Study: How Aggressively Should a Bank Pursue AI?

• Thomas H. Davenport
• George Westerman

A Malaysia-based CEO weighs the risks and potential benefits of turning a traditional bank into an AI-first institution.

Siti Rahman, the CEO of Malaysia-based NVF Bank, faces a pivotal decision. Her head of AI innovation, a recent recruit from Google, has a bold plan. It requires a substantial investment but aims to transform the traditional bank into an AI-first institution, substantially reducing head count and the number of branches. The bank’s CFO worries they are chasing the next hype cycle and cautions against valuing efficiency above all else. Siti must weigh the bank’s mixed history with AI, the resistance to losing the human touch in banking services, and the risks of falling behind in technology against the need for a prudent, incremental approach to innovation.

Two experts offer advice: Noemie Ellezam-Danielo, the chief digital and AI strategy at Société Générale, and Sastry Durvasula, the chief information and client services officer at TIAA.

Siti Rahman, the CEO of Malaysia-headquartered NVF Bank, hurried through the corridors of the university’s computer engineering department. She had directed her driver to the wrong building—thinking of her usual talent-recruitment appearances in the finance department—and now she was running late. As she approached the room, she could hear her head of AI innovation, Michael Lim, who had joined NVF from Google 18 months earlier, breaking the ice with the students. “You know, NVF used to stand for Never Very Fast,” he said to a few giggles. “But the bank is crawling into the 21st century.”

• Thomas H. Davenport is the President’s Distinguished Professor of Information Technology and Management at Babson College, a visiting scholar at the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy, and a senior adviser to Deloitte’s AI practice. He is a coauthor of All-in on AI: How Smart Companies Win Big with Artificial Intelligence (Harvard Business Review Press, 2023).
• George Westerman is a senior lecturer at MIT Sloan School of Management and a coauthor of Leading Digital (HBR Press, 2014).

Partner Center

What a Terror Attack in Israel Might Reveal About Psychedelics and Trauma

Thousands of Israelis were using mind-altering substances when Hamas-led fighters attacked a desert festival on Oct. 7. Now, scientists are studying the ravers to determine the effects of such drugs at a moment of extreme trauma.

This photo of Yuval Tapuhi was taken at the Tribe of Nova festival on Oct. 7, before the Hamas-led terrorist attack. Credit... Avishag Shaar-Yashuv for The New York Times

Supported by

• Share full article

By Natan Odenheimer ,  Aaron Boxerman and Gal Koplewitz

• April 11, 2024

One Israeli said that being high on LSD during the Hamas-led attack on Oct. 7 prompted a spiritual revelation that helped him escape the carnage at a desert rave. Another is certain the drug MDMA made him more decisive and gave him the strength to carry his girlfriend as they fled the scene. A third said that experiencing the assault during a psychedelic trip has helped him more fully process the trauma.

Listen to this article with reporter commentary

Some 4,000 revelers gathered on the night of Oct. 6 at a field in southern Israel, mere miles from the Gaza border, for the Tribe of Nova music festival. At dawn, thousands of Hamas-led terrorists stormed Israel’s defenses under the cover of a rocket barrage.

About 1,200 people were killed that day, the deadliest in Israeli history according to the Israeli authorities, including 360 at the rave alone. Many of the ravers were under the influence of mind-altering substances like LSD, MDMA and ketamine as they witnessed the carnage or fled for their lives.

For a group of Israeli researchers at the University of Haifa, the attack has created a rare opportunity to study the intersection of trauma and psychedelics, a field that has drawn increased interest from scientists in recent years.

The survivors of the Nova festival present a case study that would be impossible to replicate in a lab: a large group of people who endured trauma while under the influence of substances that render the brain more receptive and malleable.

Illegal in most countries, including Israel, these substances are now on the cusp of entering the psychiatric mainstream. Recent research suggests that careful doses of drugs like MDMA and psilocybin , the active ingredient in “magic mushrooms,” might be useful in treating post-traumatic stress disorder.

The festival participants were under the influence during their trauma, not in a controlled clinical setting, but researchers say studying them could help scientists better understand how psychedelics might be used to treat patients after a traumatic event.

The researchers surveyed more than 650 Nova survivors. Roughly 23 percent said they took hallucinogens like LSD, also known as acid, and about 27 percent used MDMA, a stimulant and psychedelic commonly called molly or ecstasy. Many attendees used more than one substance.

Participants in the survey described a variety of experiences while using drugs on Oct. 7, ranging from hallucinations to extreme clarity, from panic to resolve and from paralysis to action.

“Even though people were dropping on the ground screaming next to me, I felt a growing sense of confidence, that I was invincible,” said Yarin Reichenthal, 26, a judo coach who experienced the attack while on LSD. “I felt enlightened. I felt no fear at all.”

In many instances, according to preliminary results of the researchers’ survey, even festivalgoers using the same drugs experienced the attack in different ways — variances that might have meant the difference between life and death.

The scientists cautioned that the study was not a comprehensive review of how every participant at the rave fared because so many were killed.

“We only hear the stories of those who made it out alive,” said Roy Salomon, a cognitive science professor at the University of Haifa and a co-author of the study. “So our understanding is influenced by survivors’ bias.”

Witnesses said that for many attendees, drug use appeared to hamper their ability to flee for safety. Some ravers were too zoned out on psychedelics to realize what was happening and escape. The researchers said that those experiences were also important to their findings.

“There are two main questions,” said Roee Admon, a University of Haifa psychology professor and a co-author of the study. “How is the traumatic event experienced under different psychedelics, and what might the long-term clinical impact be?”

Professor Admon and Professor Salomon, who are leading the survey, are studying the survivors in the hopes of gleaning information about how drug use affected their experience of trauma. They are also studying how the attendees appear to be recovering and coping. A graduate student, Ophir Netzer, also helped write the study.

Of those who made it out alive, some survivors appeared to be recovering well and others reported feeling numb and detached. Some said they had increased their drug use since the attack to cope.

“We were all in such a heightened emotional state, which made us all the more vulnerable when the attack began,” said Tal Avneri, 18, who said he stayed relatively lucid on Oct. 7 after taking MDMA. “And when you’re hurt at your most fragile, you can later become numb.”

For devotees of Israel’s trance scene, a festival like Nova is more than just a way to let loose. Many view the raves — often held in forests and deserts, with pounding electronic beats and mind-altering substances — as spiritual journeys amid a like-minded community.

“The love I felt on the dance floor, the raves, the psychedelics — they helped me cope with my mother’s death,” said Yuval Tapuhi, a 27-year-old Nova survivor from Tel Aviv.

Around 6:30 a.m. on Oct. 7, as the sky turned pink and many revelers were beginning the most intense part of their trips, rockets from Gaza suddenly streaked through the sky. Air-raid sirens and loud explosions cut through the music.

Some people fell to the ground and burst out crying, multiple survivors said. Some attendees scrambled to evade the terrorists by hiding in bushes, behind trees or in riverbeds. Others sprinted through open fields, running for hours before reaching safety.

Still others fled in their cars, creating a huge traffic jam at the rave’s main exit, where they became easy targets for Palestinian gunmen swarming across the border.

Amid the gunfire and rocket barrage, Mr. Reichenthal, the judo coach, had what he describes as a transcendent experience, which he credits with his survival. The LSD trip, he said, made it feel as if his fear had been stripped away, and he murmured Bible verses as he ran to safety.

Many survivors described their initial panic being replaced with a coolheaded resolve — a function, one expert said, of stress counteracting the effects of the drugs.

Sebastian Podzamczer, 28, attributed his survival, at least in part, to a huge rush of energy and clarity he experienced while using MDMA. The drug’s influence, he said, gave him what he believes was the strength to carry his girlfriend, who had been paralyzed by fear.

Mr. Podzamczer, a former combat medic in the Israeli military, had PTSD after his service. Taking psychedelics recreationally, he said, helped him unravel some of that pain, allowing him to speak about his military service without shaking and panicking.

“But I always thought that if I was caught in an extreme situation like that, I’d be paralyzed by panic from my PTSD,” Mr. Podzamczer said. Instead, he found that the MDMA he took at the rave “helped me stay afloat, to act more quickly and decisively.”

High levels of stress can almost “overwhelm” the effects of a drug and jolt people back to reality, said Rick Doblin, the founder of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, a nonprofit organization in California that finances scientific research but is not involved in the Nova survivor study.

Almog Arad, 28, said that her acid trip kicked in after the attack began but that the circumstances quickly “minimized” the drug’s effects. While she continued to see intense colors and patterns as she fled, her decision-making remained relatively sound, she said.

“Adrenaline was the strongest drug I took that day,” she said.

The University of Haifa researchers plan to follow the survivors for years, tracking their neural activity with functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI.

They have presented their preliminary findings in a preprint paper , a scientific manuscript undergoing peer review.

Compared with survivors who used other substances, attendees who used MDMA are recovering better and showing less severe symptoms of PTSD, according to the study’s preliminary conclusions.

Many MDMA users in particular, the researchers said, believe that using the drug helped them survive. That perception, the scientists added, could have influenced their ability to cope with their trauma.

“The way in which we remember the trauma has a great impact on how we process it,” Professor Admon said. “So even if a victim’s perception is subjective, it will still have a great impact on their recovery.”

The researchers said it was difficult to assess the exact doses that the festivalgoers used, making it hard to analyze how different quantities of drugs affected people.

Mr. Reichental said he witnessed one man at the rave who appeared to be so out of it that as gunfire sounded and another raver tried to help him escape, the man instead began to flirt with her. “How lucky it is that destiny brought us together,” Mr. Reichenthal recalled the man saying. He does not believe the man survived the attack.

Psychologists and survivors said those ravers who took ketamine, a psychedelic with an intense tranquilizing and dissociative effect, appeared to be one of the groups hit hardest.

Immediately after the Nova massacre, a group of therapists and experts established a volunteer relief network for survivors, known as Safe Heart, that provided psychological support for more than 2,200 people. The group has collaborated with the University of Haifa researchers as well as with a separate , qualitative study led by Guy Simon, a psychotherapist and doctoral candidate at Bar-Ilan University.

“Most people who undergo a traumatic experience do not develop PTSD,” Professor Admon said. “Identifying those who do and treating them as early as possible is critical to their healing.”

Read by Natan Odenheimer

Audio produced by Adrienne Hurst .

Aaron Boxerman is a Times reporting fellow with a focus on international news. More about Aaron Boxerman

Our Coverage of the Israel-Hamas War

News and Analysis

Britain, the United States, France and other allies of Israel have voiced their anger over the death toll in Gaza, but when Iran launched a missile barrage at Israel, they set it aside . At least for the moment.

Israeli settlers fatally shot two Palestinians in the West Bank , according to Israeli and Palestinian officials, as tensions  continued to spike in the Israeli-occupied territory.

Ruth Patir, the artist representing Israel at the Venice Biennale, said she wouldn’t open her show in the national pavilion  until Israel and Hamas reach “a cease-fire and hostage release agreement.”

Mobilizing the American Left: As the death toll in Gaza climbed, the pro-Palestinian movement grew into a powerful, if disjointed, political force in the United States . Democrats are feeling the pressure.

Riding Rage Over Israel: Jackson Hinkle’s incendiary commentary  has generated over two million new followers on X since October — a surge that some researchers say is aided by inauthentic accounts by the online celebrity.

Psychedelics and Trauma: Thousands of festival-goers were using mind-altering substances when Hamas-led fighters attacked on Oct 7. Now, scientists are studying the effects of such drugs at a moment of trauma .

Turmoil at J Street: The war in Gaza has raised serious concerns within the Jewish political advocacy group about its ability to hold a middle position  without being pulled apart by forces on the right and the left.

Advertisement

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
• SAGE Open Nurs
• v.7; Jan-Dec 2021

Case Study Analysis as an Effective Teaching Strategy: Perceptions of Undergraduate Nursing Students From a Middle Eastern Country

Vidya seshan.

1 Maternal and Child Health Department, College of Nursing, Sultan Qaboos University, P.O. Box 66 Al-Khoudh, Postal Code 123, Muscat, Oman

Gerald Amandu Matua

2 Fundamentals and Administration Department, College of Nursing, Sultan Qaboos University, P.O. Box 66 Al-Khoudh, Postal Code 123, Muscat, Oman

Divya Raghavan

Judie arulappan, iman al hashmi, erna judith roach, sheeba elizebath sunderraj, emi john prince.

3 Griffith University, Nathan Campus, Queensland 4111

Background: Case study analysis is an active, problem-based, student-centered, teacher-facilitated teaching strategy preferred in undergraduate programs as they help the students in developing critical thinking skills. Objective: It determined the effectiveness of case study analysis as an effective teacher-facilitated strategy in an undergraduate nursing program. Methodology: A descriptive qualitative research design using focus group discussion method guided the study. The sample included undergraduate nursing students enrolled in the Maternal Health Nursing Course during the Academic Years 2017 and 2018. The researcher used a purposive sampling technique and a total of 22 students participated in the study, through five (5) focus groups, with each focus group comprising between four to six nursing students. Results: In total, nine subthemes emerged from the three themes. The themes were “Knowledge development”, “Critical thinking and Problem solving”, and “Communication and Collaboration”. Regarding “Knowledge development”, the students perceived case study analysis method as contributing toward deeper understanding of the course content thereby helping to reduce the gap between theory and practice especially during clinical placement. The “Enhanced critical thinking ability” on the other hand implies that case study analysis increased student's ability to think critically and aroused problem-solving interest in the learners. The “Communication and Collaboration” theme implies that case study analysis allowed students to share their views, opinions, and experiences with others and this enabled them to communicate better with others and to respect other's ideas which further enhanced their team building capacities. Conclusion: This method is effective for imparting professional knowledge and skills in undergraduate nursing education and it results in deeper level of learning and helps in the application of theoretical knowledge into clinical practice. It also broadened students’ perspectives, improved their cooperation capacity and their communication with each other. Finally, it enhanced student's judgment and critical thinking skills which is key for their success.

Introduction/Background

Recently, educators started to advocate for teaching modalities that not only transfer knowledge ( Shirani Bidabadi et al., 2016 ), but also foster critical and higher-order thinking and student-centered learning ( Wang & Farmer, 2008 ; Onweh & Akpan, 2014). Therefore, educators need to utilize proven teaching strategies to produce positive outcomes for learners (Onweh & Akpan, 2014). Informed by this view point, a teaching strategy is considered effective if it results in purposeful learning ( Centra, 1993 ; Sajjad, 2010 ) and allows the teacher to create situations that promote appropriate learning (Braskamp & Ory, 1994) to achieve the desired outcome ( Hodges et al., 2020 ). Since teaching methods impact student learning significantly, educators need to continuously test the effectives of their teaching strategies to ensure desired learning outcomes for their students given today's dynamic learning environments ( Farashahi & Tajeddin, 2018 ).

In this study, the researchers sought to study the effectiveness of case study analysis as an active, problem-based, student-centered, teacher-facilitated strategy in a baccalaureate-nursing program. This choice of teaching method is supported by the fact that nowadays, active teaching-learning is preferred in undergraduate programs because, they not only make students more powerful actors in professional life ( Bean, 2011 ; Yang et al., 2013 ), but they actually help learners to develop critical thinking skills ( Clarke, 2010 ). In fact, students who undergo such teaching approaches usually become more resourceful in integrating theory with practice, especially as they solve their case scenarios ( Chen et al., 2019 ; Farashahi & Tajeddin, 2018 ; Savery, 2019 ).

Review of Literature

As a pedagogical strategy, case studies allow the learner to integrate theory with real-life situations as they devise solutions to the carefully designed scenarios ( Farashahi & Tajeddin, 2018 ; Hermens & Clarke, 2009). Another important known observation is that case-study-based teaching exposes students to different cases, decision contexts and the environment to experience teamwork and interpersonal relations as “they learn by doing” thus benefiting from possibilities that traditional lectures hardly create ( Farashahi & Tajeddin, 2018 ; Garrison & Kanuka, 2004 ).

Another merit associated with case study method of teaching is the fact that students can apply and test their perspectives and knowledge in line with the tenets of Kolb et al.'s (2014) “experiential learning model”. This model advocates for the use of practical experience as the source of one's learning and development. Proponents of case study-based teaching note that unlike passive lectures where student input is limited, case studies allow them to draw from their own experience leading to the development of higher-order thinking and retention of knowledge.

Case scenario-based teaching also encourages learners to engage in reflective practice as they cooperate with others to solve the cases and share views during case scenario analysis and presentation ( MsDade, 1995 ).

This method results in “idea marriage” as learners articulate their views about the case scenario. This “idea marriage” phenomenon occurs through knowledge transfer from one situation to another as learners analyze scenarios, compare notes with each other, and develop multiple perspectives of the case scenario. In fact, recent evidence shows that authentic case-scenarios help learners to acquire problem solving and collaborative capabilities, including the ability to express their own views firmly and respectfully, which is vital for future success in both professional and personal lives ( Eronen et al., 2019 ; Yajima & Takahashi, 2017 ). In recognition of this higher education trend toward student-focused learning, educators are now increasingly expected to incorporate different strategies in their teaching.

This study demonstrated that when well implemented, educators can use active learning strategies like case study analysis to aid critical thinking, problem-solving, and collaborative capabilities in undergraduate students. This study is significant because the findings will help educators in the country and in the region to incorporate active learning strategies such as case study analysis to aid critical thinking, problem-solving, and collaborative capabilities in undergraduate students. Besides, most studies on the case study method in nursing literature mostly employ quantitative methods. The shortage of published research on the case study method in the Arabian Gulf region and the scanty use of qualitative methods further justify why we adopted the focus group method for inquiry.

A descriptive qualitative research design using focus group discussion method guided the study. The authors chose this method because it is not only inexpensive, flexible, stimulating but it is also known to help with information recall and results in rich data ( Matua et al., 2014 ; Streubert & Carpenter, 2011 ). Furthermore, as evidenced in the literature, the focus group discussion method is often used when there is a need to gain an in-depth understanding of poorly understood phenomena as the case in our study. The choice of this method is further supported by the scarcity of published research related to the use of case study analysis as a teaching strategy in the Middle Eastern region, thereby further justifying the need for an exploratory research approach for our study.

As a recommended strategy, the researchers generated data from information-rich purposively selected group of baccalaureate nursing students who had experienced both traditional lectures and cased-based teaching approaches. The focus group interviews allowed the study participants to express their experiences and perspectives in their own words. In addition, the investigators integrated participants’ self-reported experiences with their own observations and this enhanced the study findings ( Morgan & Bottorff, 2010 ; Nyumba et al., 2018 ; Parker & Tritter, 2006 ).

Eligibility Criteria

In order to be eligible to participate in the study, the participants had to:

• be a baccalaureate nursing student in College of Nursing, Sultan Qaboos University
• register for Maternity Nursing Course in 2017 and 2018.
• attend all the Case Study Analysis sessions in the courses before the study.
• show a willingness to participate in the study voluntarily and share their views freely.

The population included the undergraduate nursing students enrolled in the Maternal Health Nursing Course during the Academic Years 2017 and 2018.

The researcher used a purposive sampling technique to choose participants who were capable of actively participating and discussing their views in the focus group interviews. This technique enabled the researchers to select participants who could provide rich information and insights about case study analysis method as an effective teaching strategy. The final study sample included baccalaureate nursing students who agreed to participate in the study by signing a written informed consent. In total, twenty-two (22) students participated in the study, through five focus groups, with each focus group comprising between four and six students. The number of participants was determined by the stage at which data saturation was reached. The point of data saturation is when no new information emerges from additional participants interviewed ( Saunders et al., 2018 ).Focus group interviews were stopped once data saturation was achieved. Qualitative research design with focus group discussion allowed the researchers to generate data from information-rich purposively selected group of baccalaureate nursing students who had experienced both traditional lectures and case-based teaching approaches. The focus group interviews allowed the study participants to express their perspectives in their own words. In addition, the investigators enhanced the study findings by integrating participants’ self-reported experiences with the researchers’ own observations and notes during the study.

The study took place at College of Nursing; Sultan Qaboos University, Oman's premier public university, in Muscat. This is the only setting chosen for the study. The participants are the students who were enrolled in Maternal Health Nursing course during 2017 and 2018. The interviews occurred in the teaching rooms after official class hours. Students who did not participate in the study learnt the course content using the traditional lecture based method.

Ethical Considerations

Permission to conduct the study was granted by the College Research and Ethics Committee (XXXX). Prior to the interviews, each participant was informed about the purpose, benefits as well as the risks associated with participating in the study and clarifications were made by the principal researcher. After completing this ethical requirement, each student who accepted to participate in the study proceeded to sign an informed consent form signifying that their participation in the focus group interview was entirely voluntary and based on free will.

The anonymity of study participants and confidentiality of their data was upheld throughout the focus group interviews and during data analysis. To enhance confidentiality and anonymity of the data, each participant was assigned a unique code number which was used throughout data analysis and reporting phases. To further assure the confidentiality of the research data and anonymity of the participants, all research-related data were kept safe, under lock and key and through digital password protection, with unhindered access only available to the research team.

Research Intervention

In Fall 2017 and Spring 2018 semesters, as a method of teaching Maternal Health Nursing course, all students participated in two group-based case study analysis exercises which were implemented in the 7 th and 13 th weeks. This was done after the students were introduced to the case study method using a sample case study prior to the study. The instructor explained to the students how to solve the sample problem, including how to accomplish the role-specific competencies in the courses through case study analysis. In both weeks, each group consisting of six to seven students was assigned to different case scenarios to analyze and work on, after which they presented their collective solution to the case scenarios to the larger class of 40 students. The case scenarios used in both weeks were peer-reviewed by the researchers prior to the study.

Pilot Study

A group of three students participated as a pilot group for the study. However, the students who participated in the pilot study were not included in the final study as is general the principle with qualitative inquiry because of possible prior exposure “contamination”. The purpose of piloting was to gather data to provide guidance for a substantive study focusing on testing the data collection procedure, the interview process including the sequence and number of questions and probes and recording equipment efficacy. After the pilot phase, the lessons learned from the pilot were incorporated to ensure smooth operations during the actual focus group interview ( Malmqvist et al., 2019 .

Data Collection

The focus group interviews took place after the target population was exposed to case study analysis method in Maternal Health Nursing course during the Fall 2017 and Spring 2018 semesters. Before data collection began, the research team pilot tested the focus group interview guide to ensure that all the guide questions were clear and well understood by study participants.

In total, five (5) focus groups participated in the study, with each group comprising between four and six students. The focus group interviews lasted between 60 and 90 min. In addition to the interview guide questions, participants’ responses to unanswered questions were elicited using prompts to facilitate information flow whenever required. As a best practice, all the interviews were audio-recorded in addition to extensive field notes taken by one of the researchers. The focus group interviews continued until data saturation occurred in all the five (5) focus groups.

Credibility

In this study, participant's descriptions were digitally audio recorded to ensure that no information was lost. In order to ensure that the results are accurate, verbatim transcriptions of the audio recordings were done supported by interview notes. Furthermore, interpretations of the researcher were verified and supported with existing literature with oversight from the research team.

Transferability

The researcher provided a detailed description about the study settings, participants, sampling technique, and the process of data collection and analyses. The researcher used verbatim quotes from various participants to aid the transferability of the results.

Dependability

The researcher ensured that the research process is clearly documented, traceable, and logical to achieve dependability of the research findings. Furthermore, the researcher transparently described the research steps, procedures and process from the start of the research project to the reporting of the findings.

Confirmability

In this study, confirmability of the study findings was achieved through the researcher's efforts to make the findings credible, dependable, and transferable.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed manually after the lead researcher integrated the verbatim transcriptions with the extensive field notes to form the final data set. Data were analyzed thematically under three thematic areas of a) knowledge development; b) critical thinking and problem solving; and (c) communication and collaboration, which are linked to the study objectives. The researchers used the Six (6) steps approach to conduct a trustworthy thematic analysis: (1) familiarization with the research data, (2) generating initial codes, (3) searching for themes, (4) reviewing the themes, (5) defining and naming themes, (6) writing the report ( Nowell et al., 2017 ).

The analysis process started with each team member individually reading and re-reading the transcripts several times and then identifying meaning units linked to the three thematic areas. The co-authors then discussed in-depth the various meaning units linked to the thematic statements until consensus was reached and final themes emerged based on the study objectives.

A total of 22 undergraduate third-year baccalaureate nursing students who were enrolled in the Maternal Health Nursing Course during the Academic Years 2017 and 2018 participated in the study, through five focus groups, with each group comprising four to six students. Of these, 59% were females and 41% were males. In total, nine subthemes emerged from the three themes. Under knowledge development, emerged the subthemes, “ deepened understanding of content ; “ reduced gap between theory and practice” and “ improved test-taking ability ”. While under Critical thinking and problem solving, emerged the subthemes, “ enhanced critical thinking ability ” and “ heightened curiosity”. The third thematic area of communication and collaboration yielded, “ improved communication ability ”; “ enhanced team-building capacity ”; “ effective collaboration” and “ improved presentation skills ”, details of which are summarized in Table 1 .

Table 1.

Objective Linked Themes and Student Perceptions of Outcome Case Study Analysis.

Theme 1: Knowledge Development

In terms of knowledge development, students expressed delight at the inclusion of case study analysis as a method during their regular theory class. The first subtheme related to knowledge development that supports the adoption of the case study approach is its perceived benefit of ‘ deepened understanding of content ’ by the students as vividly described by this participant:

“ I was able to perform well in the in-course exams as this teaching method enhanced my understanding of the content rather than memorizing ” (FGD#3).

The second subtheme related to knowledge development was informed by participants’ observation that teaching them using case study analysis method ‘ reduced the gap between theory and practice’. This participant's claim stem from the realization that, a case study scenario his group analyzed in the previous week helped him and his colleagues to competently deal with a similar situation during clinical placement the following week, as articulated below:

“ You see when I was caring for mothers in antenatal unit, I could understand the condition better and could plan her care well because me and my group already analyzed a similar situation in class last week which the teacher gave us, this made our work easier in the ward”. (FGD#7).

Another student added that:

“ It was useful as what is taught in the theory class could be applied to the clinical cases.”

This ‘theory-practice’ connection was particularly useful in helping students to better understand how to manage patients with different health conditions. Interestingly, the students reported that they were more likely to link a correct nursing care plan to patients whose conditions were close to the case study scenarios they had already studied in class as herein affirmed:

“ …when in the hospital I felt I could perceive the treatment modality and plan for [a particular] nursing care well when I [had] discussed with my team members and referred the textbook resource while performing case study discussion”. (FGD#17).

In a similar way, another student added:

“…I could relate with the condition I have seen in the clinical area. So this has given me a chance to recall the condition and relate the theory to practice”. (FGD#2) .

The other subtheme closely related to case study scenarios as helping to deepen participant's understanding of the course content, is the notion that this teaching strategy also resulted in ‘ improved test taking-ability’ as this participant's verbatim statement confirms:

“ I could answer the questions related to the cases discussed [much] better during in-course exams. Also [the case scenarios] helped me a great deal to critically think and answer my exam papers” (FGD#11).

Theme 2: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving

In this subtheme, students found the case study analysis as an excellent method to learn disease conditions in the two courses. This perceived success with the case study approach is associated with the method's ability to ‘ enhance students’ critical thinking ability’ as this student declares:

“ This method of teaching increased my ability to think critically as the cases are the situations, where we need to think to solve the situation”. (FGD#5)

This enhanced critical thinking ability attributed to case study scenario analysis was also manifested during patient care where students felt it allowed them to experience a “ flow of patient care” leading to better patient management planning as would typically occur during case scenario analysis. In support of this finding, a participant mentioned that:

“ …I could easily connect the flow of patient care provided and hence was able to plan for [his] management as often required during case study discussion” (FGD#12)

Another subtheme linked with this theme is the “ heightened curiosity” associated with the case scenario discussions. It was clear from the findings that the cases aroused curiosity in the mind of the students. This heightened interest meant that during class discussion, baccalaureate nursing students became active learners, eager to discover the next set of action as herein affirmed:

“… from the beginning of discussion with the group, I was eager to find the answer to questions presented and wanted to learn the best way for patient management” (FGD#14)

Theme 3: Communication and Collaboration

In terms of its impact on student communication, the subtheme revealed that case study analysis resulted in “ improved communication ability” among the nursing students . This enhanced ability of students to exchange ideas with each other may be attributed to the close interaction required to discuss and solve their assigned case scenarios as described by the participant below:

“ as [case study analysis] was done in the way of group discussion, I felt me and my friends communicated more within the group as we discussed our condition. We also learnt from each other, and we became better with time.” (FGD#21).

The next subtheme further augments the notion that case study analysis activities helped to “ enhance team-building capacity” of students as this participant affirmatively narrates:

“ students have the opportunity to meet face to face to share their views, opinion, and their experience, as this build on the way they can communicate with each other and respect each other's opinions and enhance team-building”. (FGD#19).

Another subtheme revealed from the findings show that the small groups in which the case analysis occurs allowed the learners to have deeper and more focused conversations with one another, resulting in “ an effective collaboration between students” as herein declared:

“ We could collaborate effectively as we further went into a deep conversation on the case to solve”. (FGD#16).

Similarly, another student noted that:

“ …discussion of case scenarios helped us to prepare better for clinical postings and simulation lab experience” (FGD#5) .

A fourth subtheme related to communication found that students also identified that case study analysis resulted in “ improved presentation skills”. This is attributed in part to the preparation students have to go through as part of their routine case study discussion activities, which include organizing their presentations and justifying and integrating their ideas. Besides readying themselves for case presentations, the advice, motivation, and encouragement such students receive from their faculty members and colleagues makes them better presenters as confirmed below:

“ …teachers gave us enough time to prepare, hence I was able to present in front of the class regarding the finding from our group.” (FGD#16).

In this study, the researches explored learner's perspectives on how one of the active teaching strategies, case study analysis method impacted their knowledge development, critical thinking, and problem solving as well as communication and collaboration ability.

Knowledge Development

In terms of knowledge development, the nursing students perceived case study analysis as contributing toward: (a) deeper understanding of content, (b) reducing gap between theory and practice, and (c) improving test-taking ability. Deeper learning” implies better grasping and retention of course content. It may also imply a deeper understanding of course content combined with learner's ability to apply that understanding to new problems including grasping core competencies expected in future practice situations (Rickles et al., 2019; Rittle-Johnson et al., 2020 ). Deeper learning therefore occurs due to the disequilibrium created by the case scenario, which is usually different from what the learner already knows ( Hattie, 2017 ). Hence, by “forcing” students to compare and discuss various options in the quest to solve the “imbalance” embedded in case scenarios, students dig deeper in their current understanding of a given content including its application to the broader context ( Manalo, 2019 ). This movement to a deeper level of understanding arises from carefully crafted case scenarios that instructors use to stimulate learning in the desired area (Nottingham, 2017; Rittle-Johnson et al., 2020 ). The present study demonstrated that indeed such carefully crafted case study scenarios did encourage students to engage more deeply with course content. This finding supports the call by educators to adopt case study as an effective strategy.

Another finding that case study analysis method helps in “ reducing the gap between theory and practice ” implies that the method helps students to maintain a proper balance between theory and practice, where they can see how theoretical knowledge has direct practical application in the clinical area. Ajani and Moez (2011) argue that to enable students to link theory and practice effectively, nurse educators should introduce them to different aspects of knowledge and practice as with case study analysis. This dual exposure ensures that students are proficient in theory and clinical skills. This finding further amplifies the call for educators to adequately prepare students to match the demands and realities of modern clinical environments ( Hickey, 2010 ). This expectation can be met by ensuring that student's knowledge and skills that are congruent with hospital requirements ( Factor et al., 2017 ) through adoption of case study analysis method which allows integration of clinical knowledge in classroom discussion on regular basis.

The third finding, related to “improved test taking ability”, implies that case study analysis helped them to perform better in their examination, noting that their experience of going through case scenario analysis helped them to answer similar cases discussed in class much better during examinations. Martinez-Rodrigo et al. (2017) report similar findings in a study conducted among Spanish electrical engineering students who were introduced to problem-based cooperative learning strategies, which is similar to case study analysis method. Analysis of student's results showed that their grades and pass rates increased considerably compared to previous years where traditional lecture-based method was used. Similar results were reported by Bonney (2015) in an even earlier study conducted among biology students in Kings Borough community college students, in New York, United States. When student's performance in examination questions covered by case studies was compared with class-room discussions, and text-book reading, case study analysis approach was significantly more effective compared to traditional methods in aiding students’ performance in their examinations. This finding therefore further demonstrates that case study analysis method indeed improves student's test taking ability.

Critical Thinking and Problem Solving

In terms of critical thinking and problem-solving ability, the use of case study analysis resulted in two subthemes: (a) enhanced critical thinking ability and (b) heightened learner curiosity. The “ enhanced critical thinking ability” implies that case analysis increased student's ability to think critically as they navigated through the case scenarios. This observation agrees with the findings of an earlier questionnaire-based study conducted among 145 undergraduate business administration students at Chittagong University, Bangladesh, that showed 81% of respondents agree that case study analysis develops critical thinking ability and enables students to do better problem analysis ( Muhiuddin & Jahan, 2006 ). This observation agrees with the findings of an earlier study conducted among 145 undergraduate business administration students at Chittagong University, Bangladesh. The study showed that 81% of respondents agreed that case study analysis facilitated the development of critical thinking ability in the learners and enabled the students to perform better with problem analysis ( Muhiuddin & Jahan, 2006 ).

More recently, Suwono et al. (2017) found similar results in a quasi-experimental research conducted at a Malaysian university. The research findings showed that there was a significant difference in biological literacy and critical thinking skills between the students taught using socio-biological case-based learning and those taught using traditional lecture-based learning. The researchers concluded that case-based learning enhanced the biological literacy and critical thinking skills of the students. The current study adds to the existing pedagogical knowledge base that case study methodology can indeed help to deepen learner's critical thinking and problem solving ability.

The second subtheme related to “ heightened learner curiosity” seems to suggest that the case studies aroused problem-solving interest in learners. This observation agrees with two earlier studies by Tiwari et al. (2006) and Flanagan and McCausland (2007) who both reported that most students enjoyed case-based teaching. The authors add that the case study method also improved student's clinical reasoning, diagnostic interpretation of patient information as well as their ability to think logically when presented a challenge in the classroom and in the clinical area. Jackson and Ward (2012) similarly reported that first year engineering undergraduates experienced enhanced student motivation. The findings also revealed that the students venturing self-efficacy increased much like their awareness of the importance of key aspects of the course for their future careers. The authors conclude that the case-based method appears to motivate students to autonomously gather, analyze and present data to solve a given case. The researchers observed enhanced personal and collaborative efforts among the learners, including improved communication ability. Further still, learners were more willing to challenge conventional wisdom, and showed higher “softer” skills after exposure to case analysis based teaching method. These findings like that of the current study indicate that teaching using case based analysis approach indeed motivates students to engage more in their learning, there by resulting in deeper learning.

Communication and Collaboration

Case study analysis is also perceived to result in: (a) improved communication ability; (b) enhanced team -building capacity, (c) effective collaboration ability, and (d) enhanced presentation skills. The “ improved communication ability ” manifested in learners being better able to exchange ideas with peers, communicating their views more clearly and collaborating more effectively with their colleagues to address any challenges that arise. Fini et al. (2018) report comparable results in a study involving engineering students who were subjected to case scenario brainstorming activities about sustainability concepts and their implications in transportation engineering in selected courses. The results show that this intervention significantly improved student's communication skills besides their higher-order cognitive, self-efficacy and teamwork skills. The researchers concluded that involving students in brainstorming activities related to problem identification including their practical implications, is an effective teaching strategy. Similarly, a Korean study by Park and Choi (2018) that sought to analyze the effects of case-based communication training involving 112 sophomore nursing students concluded that case-based training program improved the students’ critical thinking ability and communication competence. This finding seems to support further the use of case based teaching as an effective teaching-learning strategy.

The “ enhanced team-building capacity” arose from the opportunity students had in sharing their views, opinions, and experiences where they learned to communicate with each other and respect each other's ideas which further enhance team building. Fini et al. (2018) similarly noted that increased teamwork levels were seen among their study respondents when the researchers subjected engineering students to case scenario based-brainstorming activities as occurs with case study analysis teaching. Likewise, Lairamore et al. (2013) report similar results in their study that showed that case study analysis method increased team work ability and readiness among students from five health disciplines in a US-based study.

The finding that case study analysis teaching method resulted in “ effective collaboration ability” among students manifested as students entered into deep conversation as they solved the case scenarios. Rezaee and Mosalanejad (2015) assert that such innovative learning strategies result in noticeable educational outcomes, such as greater satisfaction with and enjoyment of the learning process ( Wellmon et al., 2012 ). Further, positive attitudes toward learning and collaboration have been noted leading to deeper learning as students prepare for case discussions ( Rezaee & Mosalanejad, 2015 ). This results show that case study analysis can be utilized by educators to foster professional collaboration among their learners, which is one of the key expectations of new graduates today.

The finding associated with “improved presentation skills” is consistent with the results of a descriptive study in Saudi Arabia that compared case study and traditional lectures in the teaching of physiology course to undergraduate nursing students. The researchers found that case-based teaching improved student’ overall knowledge and performance in the course including facilitating the acquisition of skills compared to traditional lectures ( Majeed, 2014 ). Noblitt et al. (2010) report similar findings in their study that compares traditional presentation approach with the case study method for developing and improving student's oral communication skills. This finding extends our understanding that case study method improves learners’ presentation skills.

The study was limited to level third year nursing students belonging to only one college and the sample size, which might limit the transferability of the study findings to other settings.

Implications for Practice

These study findings add to the existing body of knowledge that places case study based teaching as a tested method that promotes perception learning where students’ senses are engaged as a result of the real-life and authentic clinical scenarios ( Malesela, 2009 ), resulting in deeper learning and achievement of long-lasting knowledge ( Fiscus, 2018 ). The students reported that case scenario discussions broadened their perspectives, improved their cooperation capacity and communication with each other. This teaching method, in turn, offers students an opportunity to enhance their judgment and critical thinking skills by applying theory into practice.

These skills are critically important because nurses need to have the necessary knowledge and skills to plan high quality care for their patients to achieve a speedy recovery. In order to attain this educational goal, nurse educators have to prepare students through different student- centered strategies. The findings of our study appear to show that when appropriately used, case-based teaching results in acquisition of disciplinary knowledge manifested by deepened understanding of course content, as well as reducing the gap between theory and practice and enhancing learner's test-taking-ability. The study also showed that cased based teaching enhanced learner's critical thinking ability and curiosity to seek and acquire a deeper knowledge. Finally, the study results indicate that case study analysis results in improved communication and enhanced team-building capacity, collaborative ability and improved oral communication and presentation skills. The study findings and related evidence from literature show that case study analysis is well- suited approach for imparting knowledge and skills in baccalaureate nursing education.

This study evaluated the usefulness of Case Study Analysis as a teaching strategy. We found that this method of teaching helps encourages deeper learning among students. For instructors, it provides the opportunity to tailor learning experiences for students to undertake in depth study in order to stimulate deeper understanding of the desired content. The researchers conclude that if the cases are carefully selected according to the level of the students, and are written realistically and creatively and the group discussions keep students well engaged, case study analysis method is more effective than other traditional lecture methods in facilitating deeper and transferable learning/skills acquisition in undergraduate courses.

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

ORCID iD: Judie Arulappan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2788-2755

• Ajani K., Moez S. (2011). Gap between knowledge and practice in nursing . Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , 15 , 3927–3931. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.396 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bean J. C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing critical thinking and active-learning in the classroom (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bonney K. M. (2015). Case study teaching method improves student performance and perceptions of learning gains . Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education , 16 ( 1 ), 21–28. 10.1128/jmbe.v16i1.846 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Braskamp L. A., Ory J. C. (1994). Assessing faculty work: Enhancing individual and institutional performance . Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. Jossey-Bass Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Centra J. A. (1993). Reflective faculty evaluation: Enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness . Jossey-Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen W., Shah U. V., Brechtelsbauer C. (2019). A framework for hands-on learning in chemical engineering education—training students with the end goal in mind . Education for Chemical Engineers , 28 , 25–29. 10.1016/j.ece.2019.03.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clarke J. (2010). Student centered teaching methods in a Chinese setting . Nurse Education Today , 30 ( 1 ), 15–19. 10.1016/j.nedt.2009.05.009 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eronen L., Kokko S., Sormunen K. (2019). Escaping the subject-based class: A Finnish case study of developing transversal competencies in a transdisciplinary course . The Curriculum Journal , 30 ( 3 ), 264–278. 10.1080/09585176.2019.1568271 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Factor E. M. R., Matienzo E. T., de Guzman A. B. (2017). A square peg in a round hole: Theory-practice gap from the lens of Filipino student nurses . Nurse Education Today , 57 , 82–87. 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.07.004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farashahi M., Tajeddin M. (2018). Effectiveness of teaching methods in business education: A comparison study on the learning outcomes of lectures, case studies and simulations . The International Journal of Management Education , 16 ( 1 ), 131–142. 10.1016/j.ijme.2018.01.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fini E. H., Awadallah F., Parast M. M., Abu-Lebdeh T. (2018). The impact of project-based learning on improving student learning outcomes of sustainability concepts in transportation engineering courses . European Journal of Engineering Education , 43 ( 3 ), 473–488. 10.1080/03043797.2017.1393045 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiscus J. (2018). Reflection in Motion: A Case Study of Reflective Practice in the Composition Classroom [ Doctoral dissertation ]. Source: http://hdl.handle.net/1773/42299 [ Google Scholar ]
• Flanagan N. A., McCausland L. (2007). Teaching around the cycle: Strategies for teaching theory to undergraduate nursing students . Nursing Education Perspectives , 28 ( 6 ), 310–314. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garrison D. R., Kanuka H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education . The internet and higher education , 7 ( 2 ), 95–105. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hattie J. (2017). Foreword . In Nottingham J. (Ed.), The learning challenge: How to guide your students through the learning pit to achieve deeper understanding . Corwin Press, p. xvii. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hermens A., Clarke E. (2009). Integrating blended teaching and learning to enhance graduate attributes . Education+ Training , 51 ( 5/6 ), 476–490. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hickey M. T. (2010). Baccalaureate nursing graduates’ perceptions of their clinical instructional experiences and preparation for practice . Journal of Professional Nursing , 26 ( 1 ), 35–41. 10.1016/j.profnurs.2009.03.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hodges C., Moore S., Lockee B., Trust T., Bond A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning . Educause review , 27 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jackson N. R., Ward A. E. (2012). Curiosity based learning: Impact study in 1st year electronics undergraduates. 2012 International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET), Istanbul, pp. 1–6. 10.1109/ITHET.2012.6246005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolb A. Y., Kolb D. A., Passarelli A., Sharma G. (2014). On becoming an experiential educator: The educator role profile . Simulation & Gaming , 45 ( 2 ), 204–234. 10.1177/1046878114534383 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lairamore C., George-Paschal L., McCullough K., Grantham M., Head D. (2013). A case-based interprofessional education forum improves students’ perspectives on the need for collaboration, teamwork, and communication . MedEdPORTAL, The Journal of Teaching and learning resources , 9 , 10.15766/mep_2374-8265.9484 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Majeed F. (2014). Effectiveness of case based teaching of physiology for nursing students . Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences , 9 ( 4 ), 289–292. 10.1016/j.jtumed.2013.12.005 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Malesela J. M. (2009). Case study as a learning opportunity among nursing students in a university . Health SA Gesondheid (Online) , 14 ( 1 ), 33–38. 10.4102/hsag.v14i1.434 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Malmqvist J., Hellberg K., Möllås G., Rose R., Shevlin M. (2019). Conducting the pilot study: A neglected part of the research process? Methodological findings supporting the importance of piloting in qualitative research studies . International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 18 . 10.1177/1609406919878341 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Manalo E. (ed.). (2019). Deeper learning, dialogic learning, and critical thinking: Research-based strategies for the classroom . Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martinez-Rodrigo F., Herrero-De Lucas L. C., De Pablo S., Rey-Boue A. B. (2017). Using PBL to improve educational outcomes and student satisfaction in the teaching of DC/DC and DC/AC converters . IEEE Transactions on Education , 60 ( 3 ), 229–237. 10.1109/TE.2016.2643623 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Matua G. A., Seshan V., Akintola A. A., Thanka A. N. (2014). Strategies for providing effective feedback during preceptorship: Perspectives from an Omani Hospital . Journal of Nursing Education and Practice , 4 ( 10 ), 24. 10.5430/jnep.v4n10p24 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan D. L., Bottorff J. L. (2010). Advancing our craft: Focus group methods and practice . Qualitative Health Research , 20 ( 5 ), 579–581. 10.1177/1049732310364625 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MsDade S. A. (1995). Case study pedagogy to advance critical thinking . Teaching psychology , 22 ( 1 ), 9–10. 10.1207/s15328023top2201_3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muhiuddin G., Jahan N. (2006). Students’ perception towards case study as a method of learning in the field of business administration’ . The Chittagong University Journal of Business Administration , 21 , 25–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Noblitt L., Vance D. E., Smith M. L. D. (2010). A comparison of case study and traditional teaching methods for improvement of oral communication and critical-thinking skills . Journal of College Science Teaching , 39 ( 5 ), 26–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nottingham J. (2017). The learning challenge: How to guide your students through the learning pit to achieve deeper understanding . Corwin Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nowell L. S., Norris J. M., White D. E., Moules N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria . International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 16 ( 1 ). 10.1177/1609406917733847 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nyumba T., Wilson K., Derrick C. J., Mukherjee N. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation . Methods in Ecology and evolution , 9 ( 1 ), 20–32. 10.1111/2041-210X.12860 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Onweh V. E., Akpan U. T. (2014). Instructional strategies and students academic performance in electrical installation in technical colleges in Akwa Ibom State: Instructional skills for structuring appropriate learning experiences for students . International Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Studies , 6 ( 5 ), 80–86. [ Google Scholar ]
• Park S. J., Choi H. S. (2018). The effect of case-based SBAR communication training program on critical thinking disposition, communication self-efficacy and communication competence of nursing students . Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society , 19 ( 11 ), 426–434. 10.5762/KAIS.2018.19.11.426 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parker A., Tritter J. (2006). Focus group method and methodology: Current practice and recent debate . International Journal of Research & Method in Education , 29 ( 1 ), 23–37. 10.1080/01406720500537304 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rezaee R., Mosalanejad L. (2015). The effects of case-based team learning on students’ learning, self-regulation and self-direction . Global Journal of Health Science , 7 ( 4 ), 295. 10.5539/gjhs.v7n4p295 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rickles J., Zeiser K. L., Yang R., O’Day J., Garet M. S. (2019). Promoting deeper learning in high school: Evidence of opportunities and outcomes . Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 41 ( 2 ), 214–234. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rittle-Johnson B., Star J. R., Durkin K., Loehr A. (2020). Compare and discuss to promote deeper learning. Deeper learning, dialogic learning, and critical thinking: Research-based strategies for the classroom . Routlegde, p. 48. 10.4324/9780429323058-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sajjad S. (2010). Effective teaching methods at higher education level . Pakistan Journal of Special Education , 11 , 29–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saunders B., Sim J., Kingstone T., Baker S., Waterfield J., Bartlam B., Burroughs H., Jinks C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization . Quality & Quantity , 52 ( 4 ), 1893–1907. 10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Savery J. R. (2019). Comparative pedagogical models of problem based learning . The Wiley Handbook of Problem Based Learning , 81–104. 10.1002/9781119173243.ch4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shirani Bidabadi N., Nasr Isfahani A., Rouhollahi A., Khalili R. (2016). Effective teaching methods in higher education: Requirements and barriers . Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism , 4 ( 4 ), 170–178. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Streubert H. J., Carpenter D. R. (2011). Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the humanistic imperative . Wolters Kluwer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Suwono H., Pratiwi H. E., Susanto H., Susilo H. (2017). Enhancement of students’ biological literacy and critical thinking of biology through socio-biological case-based learning . JurnalPendidikan IPA Indonesia , 6 ( 2 ), 213–220. 10.15294/jpii.v6i2.9622 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tiwari A., Lai P., So M., Yuen K. (2006). A comparison of the effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of students’ critical thinking . Medical Education , 40 ( 6 ), 547–554. 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02481.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang V., Farmer L. (2008). Adult teaching methods in China and bloom's taxonomy . International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning , 2 ( 2 ), n2. 10.20429/ijsotl.2008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wellmon R., Gilin B., Knauss L., Linn M. I. (2012). Changes in student attitudes toward interprofessional learning and collaboration arising from a case-based educational experience . Journal of Allied Health , 41 ( 1 ), 26–34. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yajima K., Takahashi S. (2017). Development of evaluation system of AL students . Procedia Computer Science , 112 , 1388–1395. 10.1016/j.procs.2017.08.056 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang W. P., Chao C. S. C., Lai W. S., Chen C. H., Shih Y. L., Chiu G. L. (2013). Building a bridge for nursing education and clinical care in Taiwan—using action research and confucian tradition to close the gap . Nurse Education Today , 33 ( 3 ), 199–204. 10.1016/j.nedt.2012.02.016 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

“Evaluation yes, but not like this”: Case study of a failed policy in the Mexican high school

This article addresses one of the most heated moments in recent education policy in Mexico, framed within the 2013 Educational Reform: The performance evaluation of high school teachers across the country, and the condition that they would potentially lose their teaching position if they refused to take the evaluation or failed it. Unprecedented in its type and scope, the evaluation triggered controversy throughout the country, polarizing the population on its benefits and negative effects. The purpose of this study is to recover, through a retrospective analysis, the experience, perception, feelings, and emotions that the evaluation generated in a group of high school teachers in the state of Morelos, Mexico. A qualitative methodology was used, employing techniques like the collection of newspaper sources, official documents, and television content, as well as conducting interviews with 25 out of 34 teachers selected by the educational authority to be evaluated. Pre- and post-evaluation interviews were conducted and presented. Among the findings, it was noted that teachers were willing to be evaluated, but considered the evaluation process to be disorganized, unfair, and even punitive.

Author Biographies

Luz marina ibarra uribe, universidad autónoma del estado de morelos.

Antropóloga social por la Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia (México), realizó estudios del Historia en la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México y es doctora en educación por la Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos. Es responsable del Cuerpo Académico Consolidado: Estudios Estratégicos Regionales e integrante de la Red Nacional de Investigadores en Educación y Valores (REDUVAL), del Consejo Mexicano de Investigación Educativa (COMIE), de la Red de Investigación en Emociones y Afectos desde las Ciencias Sociales y las Humanidades (RENISCE Internacional), de la Red Internacional de Colaboración en Temas de Innovación, Emprendimiento y Competitividad para el Desarrollo Económico y social (REDIIEMCO), así como de la Red de Investigación Educativa del CBTis No.76. Sus líneas de investigación son: género, valores, educación y políticas educativas. Actualmente es profesora-investigadora, titular C adscrita a la Facultad de Estudios Superiores de Cuautla (FESC) de la Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos (UAEM). Es perfil deseable PRODEP-SEP; miembro del Sistema Nacional de Investigadoras e Investigadores (SNII). Es autora de los libros: Trayectorias escolares de jóvenes bachilleres atravesadas por la pandemia, El acoso laboral en las instituciones de educación superior. Una visión desde el género y, Abuelas, madres y nietas. Escolaridad y participación ciudadana 1930-1990, publicados por la Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos y coordinador de seis libros más. Autora de diversos artículos y capítulos publicados en revistas indexadas y libros especializados en temas educativos y dictaminadora de diversas revistas especializadas sobre temas de ciencias sociales.

César Darío Fonseca Bautista, Centro de Bachillerato Tecnológico industrial y de servicios No. 76

Anthropologist, Master in Educational Research and Doctor of Education from the UAEM. Attached to the DGETI subsystem. Responsible for the Educational Research Network of his campus. Member of the SNI, COMIE, Reduval and Renisce. Coordinator of the books: Teachers, students and graduates of the industrial technological baccalaureate in the common curricular framework, and Collaborative work in upper secondary education, Author of articles published in specialized magazines, on topics related to upper secondary education.

• PDF (Español)

How to Cite

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

Copyright (c) 2024 Luz Marina Ibarra Uribe, César Darío Fonseca Bautista

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License .

Most read articles by the same author(s)

• Luz Marina Ibarra Uribe, Ana Esther Escalante Ferrer, César Darío Fonseca Bautista, El significado de estudiar para los jóvenes de bachillerato , Education Policy Analysis Archives: Vol. 21 (2013)

Education Policy Analysis Archives/Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas/Arquivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas (EPAA/AAPE;  ISSN 1068-2341 ) is a peer-reviewed, open-access, international, multilingual, and multidisciplinary journal designed for researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and development analysts concerned with education policies.

• Português (Brasil)
• Español (España)

Submit a Manuscript or Revision

Recent special issues.

Youth and Adult Education, Literacies and Decoloniality

Global Policy Mobilities in Federal Education Systems

Teacher Subjectivities in Latin America

A popular YouTuber's negative video of Humane's AI Pin raises questions about critical reviews in the age of innovation

• This post originally appeared in the Insider Today newsletter.
• You can sign up for Business Insider's daily newsletter here .

Hello there! If you're struggling to decide the foods worth buying organic, best-selling author Michael Pollan has some suggestions for the ones worth splurging on to avoid harmful chemicals .  

In today's big story, we're looking at a critical tech review that caused a bit of a stir on social media .

What's on deck:

Markets: Goldman Sachs quiets the haters with a monster earnings report .

Tech: Leaked docs show one of Prime Video's biggest issues, forcing customers to abandon shows .

Business: The best bet in business these days? Targeting young men who like to gamble .

But first, the review is in!

If this was forwarded to you, sign up here.

The big story

Up for review.

"The Worst Product I've Ever Reviewed… For Now"

Marques Brownlee, the YouTuber better known as MKBHD, didn't mince words with the title of his review of Humane's AI Pin .

In a 25-minute video , Brownlee details all the issues he encountered using the AI device. (Spoiler alert: There were a lot.)

Brownlee's review aligns with other criticisms of the device . But not all of those came from someone with as much sway. His YouTube channel has more than 18 million subscribers.

One user on X pointed that out , calling the review "almost unethical" for "potentially killing someone else's nascent project" in a post reposted over 2,000 times. 

Most of the internet disagreed, and a Humane exec even thanked Brownlee on X for the "fair and valid critiques." 

But it highlights the power of Brownlee's reviews. Earlier this year, a negative video of Fisker's Ocean SUV by Brownlee also made waves on social media . 

Critical reviews in the age of innovation raise some interesting questions.

To be clear, there was nothing wrong with Brownlee's review. Humane's AI Pin costs $700. Watering down his review to ease the blow would be a disservice to the millions of fans relying on his perspective before making such a significant purchase.

Too often, companies view potential customers as an extension of their research and development. They are happy to sell a product that is still a work in progress on the promise they'll fix it on the fly. ("Updates are coming!")

But in a world of instant gratification, it can be hard to appreciate that innovation takes time. 

Even Apple can run into this conundrum. Take the Apple Vision Pro. Reviewers are impressed with the technology behind the much-anticipated gadget — but are still struggling to figure out what they can do with it . Maybe, over time, that will get sorted out. It's also worth remembering how cool tech can be, as Business Insider's Peter Kafka wrote following a bunch of trips in Waymo's software-powered taxis in San Francisco . Sure, robotaxis have their issues, Peter said, but they also elicit that "golly-gee-can-you-believe-it" sense.

As for Humane, America loves a comeback story. Just look at "Cyberpunk 2077." The highly anticipated video game had a disastrous launch in 2020 , but redeemed itself three years later, ultimately winning a major award .

Still, Humane shouldn't get a pass for releasing a product that didn't seem ready for primetime, according to the reviews. 

And its issue could be bigger than glitchy tech. Humane's broader thesis about reducing screen time might not be as applicable. As BI's Katie Notopolous put it: " I love staring at my iPhone ."

3 things in markets

1. Goldman finally strikes gold. After a rough stretch, the vaunted investment bank crushed earnings expectations , sending its stock soaring. A big tailwind, according to CEO David Solomon, is AI spawning " enormous opportunities " for the bank. 

2. Buy the dip, Wedbush says. Last week's drop among tech stocks shouldn't scare away investors , according to Wedbush. A strong earnings report, buoyed by the ongoing AI craze, should keep them soaring, strategists said. But JPMorgan doesn't see it that way, saying prices are already stretched .   

3. China's economy beat analysts' expectations. The country's GDP grew 5.3% in the first quarter of 2024, according to data published by the National Bureau of Statistics on Tuesday. It's a welcome return to form for the world's second-largest economy, although below-par new home and retail sales remain a cause for concern .

3 things in tech

1. Amazon Prime Video viewers are giving up on its shows. Leaked documents show viewers are fed up with the streamer's error-ridden catalog system , which often has incomplete titles and missing episodes. In 2021, 60% of all content-related complaints were about Prime Video's catalog.

2. Eric Newcomer is bringing his Cerebral Valley AI Summit to New York. The conference, originally held in San Francisco, is famous for producing one of the largest generative AI acquisitions ever. Now, it's coming to New York in June .

3. OpenAI is plotting an expansion to NYC. Two people familiar with the plans told BI that the ChatGPT developer is looking to open a New York office next year. That would be the company's fifth office, alongside its current headquarters in San Francisco, a just-opened site in Tokyo, and spots in London and Dublin.

3 things in business

1. America's young men are spending their money like never before. From sports betting to meme coins, young men are more willing than ever to blow money in the hopes of making a fortune .

2. Investors are getting into women's sports. With women like Caitlin Clark dominating March Madness headlines, investors see a big opportunity. BI compiled a list of 13 investors and fund managers pouring money into the next big thing in sports.

3. Bad news for Live Nation. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Justice Department could hit the concert giant with an antitrust lawsuit as soon as next month. Live Nation, which owns Ticketmaster, has long faced criticism over its high fees.

In other news

Blackstone hires Walmart AI whiz to supercharge its portfolio companies .

Taylor Swift, Rihanna, Blackpink's Lisa: Celebrities spotted at Coachella 2024 . 

NYC's rat czar says stop feeding the pigeons if you want the vermin gone .

A major Tesla executive left after 18 years at the company amid mass layoffs .

Some Tesla factory workers realized they were laid off when security scanned their badges and sent them back on shuttles, sources say .

New York is in, San Francisco is very much out for tech workers relocating .

AI could split workers into 2: The ones whose jobs get better and the ones who lose them completely .

Oh look at that! Now Google is using AI to answer search queries .

A longtime banker gives a rare inside look at how he is thinking about his next career move, from compensation to WFH .

Clarence Thomas didn't show up for work today .

What's happening today

Today's earnings: United Airlines, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, and others are reporting . 

It's Free Cone Day at participating Ben & Jerry's stores. 

The Insider Today team: Dan DeFrancesco , deputy editor and anchor, in New York. Jordan Parker Erb , editor, in New York. Hallam Bullock , senior editor, in London. George Glover , reporter, in London.

Watch: Nearly 50,000 tech workers have been laid off — but there's a hack to avoid layoffs

• Main content

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

6 in 10 U.S. Catholics are in favor of abortion rights, Pew Research report finds

Jason DeRose

Pope Francis remains popular among U.S. Catholics, with 75% having favorable views of him, according to a Pew Research report. But many self-identified Catholics disagree with various teachings of their church. Andrew Medichini/AP hide caption

Pope Francis remains popular among U.S. Catholics, with 75% having favorable views of him, according to a Pew Research report. But many self-identified Catholics disagree with various teachings of their church.

Catholics in the U.S., one of the country's largest single Christian groups, hold far more diverse views on abortion rights than the official teaching of their church.

While the Catholic Church itself holds that abortion is wrong and should not be legal, 6 in 10 U.S. adult Catholics say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to a newly released profile of Catholicism by Pew Research .

Catholic opinion about abortion rights, according to the report, tends to align with political leanings: Fewer Catholic Republicans favor legal abortion than Catholic Democrats. And Pew says Hispanic Catholics, who make up one-third of the U.S. church, are slightly more in favor of legal abortion than white Catholics.

Despite church prohibitions, Catholics still choose IVF to have children

Pew found that 20% of the U.S. population identifies as Catholic, but only about 3 in 10 say they attend mass regularly. Opinions about abortion rights appear to be related to how often someone worships — just 34% of Catholics who attend mass weekly say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, whereas that number jumps to 68% among those who attend mass monthly or less.

Most U.S. Catholics are white (57%), but that number has dropped by 8 percentage points since 2007, according the new report. About 33% identify as Hispanic, 4% Asian, 2% Black, and 3% describe themselves as another race.

Pew Research also found that as of February, Pope Francis remains highly popular, with 75% of U.S. Catholics rating him favorably. However, there is a partisan divide, with Catholic Democrats more strongly supporting him.

About 4 in 10 U.S. Catholics view Francis as a major agent of change, with 3 in 10 saying he is a minor agent of change.

Catholic Church works to explain what same-sex blessings are and are not

Pew reports that many U.S. Catholics would welcome more change. Some 83% say they want the church to allow the use of contraception, 69% say priests should be allowed to get married, 64% say women should be allowed to become priests, and 54% say the Catholic Church should recognize same-sex marriage.

In December 2023, the Vatican issued guidance to priests that they may bless people in same-sex relationships. But the church insists those blessings not be construed in any way to be a form of marriage or even take place as part of a worship service.

• Pope Francis
• Abortion rights
• Catholic church
• Pew Research