conclusion for case study method

• Reviews / Why join our community?
• For companies
• Frequently asked questions

How to write the conclusion of your case study

You worked on an amazing UX project. You documented every detail and deliverable and when the time came, you began to write a UX case study about it. In the case study, you highlighted how you worked through a Design Thinking process to get to the end result; so, can you stop there and now move on to the next thing? Well, no! There’s just one more bit left to finish up and make the perfect case study. So, get ready; we will now explore how you can write the perfect conclusion to wrap it all up and leave a lasting great impression.

Every start has an end – we’re not just repeating the famous quote here, because for case studies, a proper end is your last and final chance to leave a lasting great (at the very least, good) impression with whoever is reading your work (typically, recruiters!). Many junior UX designers often forget about the conclusion part of the case study, but this is a costly mistake to make. A well-written case study must end with an appropriate final section, in which you should summarize the key takeaways that you want others to remember about you and your work. Let’s see why.

Last impressions are just as important as first ones

We’ll go to some length here to convince you about the importance of last impressions, especially as we can understand the reason behind not wanting to pay very much attention to the end of your case study, after all the hard work you put into writing the process section. You are tired, and anyone who’s read your work should already have a good idea about your skills, anyway. Surely—you could be forgiven for thinking, at least—all that awesome material you put in the start and middle sections must have built up the momentum to take your work into orbit and make the recruiter’s last impression of you a lasting—and very good—one, and all you need to do now is take your leave. However, psychologist Saul McLeod (2008) explains how early work by experimental psychology pioneers Atkinson & Shriffin (1968) demonstrated that when humans are presented with information, they tend to remember the first and last elements and are more likely to forget the middle ones.

This is known as the “ serial position effect ” (more technically, the tendency to remember the first elements is known as the “ primacy effect ”, while the tendency to remember the last elements is known as the “ recency effect ”). Further work in human experiences discovered that the last few things we see or hear at the end of an experience can generate the most powerful memories that come back to us when we come across a situation or when we think about it. For example, let’s say you stayed in a hotel room that left a bit to be desired. Maybe the room was a little cramped, or the towels were not so soft. But if the receptionist, as you leave, shakes your hand warmly, smiles and thanks you sincerely for your custom, and goes out of his way to help you with your luggage, or to get you a taxi, you will remember that person’s kind demeanor more than you will remember the fact that the room facilities could be improved.

A good ending to your case study can help people forget some of the not-so-good points about your case study middle. For example, if you missed out a few crucial details but can demonstrate some truly interesting takeaways, they can always just ask you about these in an interview. Inversely, a bad ending leaves the recruiter with some doubt that will linger. Did this person learn nothing interesting from all this work? Did their work have no impact at all? Did they even write the case study themselves? A bad last impression can certainly undo much of the hard work you’ve put into writing the complicated middle part of your case study.

What to put in your case study conclusions

A case study ending is your opportunity to bring some closure to the story that you are writing. So, you can use it to mention the status of the project (e.g., is it ongoing or has it ended?) and then to demonstrate the impact that your work has had. By presenting some quantifiable results (e.g., data from end evaluations, analytics, key performance indicators ), you can demonstrate this impact. You can also discuss what you learned from this project, making you wiser than the next applicant – for example, something about a special category of users that the company might be interested in developing products for, or something that is cutting-edge and that advances the frontiers of science or practice.

As you can see, there are a few good ways in which you can end your case study. Next, we will outline four options that can be part of your ending: lessons learned, the impact of the project, reflections, and acknowledgements.

Lessons learned

A recruiter wants to see how you improve yourself by learning from the projects you work on. You can discuss interesting insights that you learned from user research or the evaluation of your designs – for example, surprising behaviors that you found out about the technology use in a group of users who are not typically considered to be big proponents of technology (e.g., older adults), or, perhaps, the reasons a particular design pattern didn’t work as well as expected under the context of your project.

Another thing you can discuss is your opinion on what the most difficult challenge of the project was, and comment on how you managed to overcome it. You can also discuss here things that you found out about yourself as a professional – for example, that you enjoyed taking on a UX role that you didn’t have previous experience with, or that you were able to overcome some personal limitations or build on your existing skills in a new way.

Impact of the project

Showing impact is always good. How did you measure the impact of your work? By using analytics, evaluation results, and even testimonials from your customers or users, or even your development or marketing team, you can demonstrate that your methodical approach to work brought about some positive change. Use before-after comparison data to demonstrate the extent of your impact. Verbatim positive quotes from your users or other project stakeholders are worth their weight (or rather, sentence length) in gold. Don’t go overboard, but mix and match the best evidence for the quality of your work to keep the end section brief and to the point.

Copyright holder: Andreas Komninos, Interaction Design Foundation. Copyright terms and license: CC BY-SA 3.0

User reviews from app stores are a great source of obtaining testimonials to include in your case studies. Overall app ratings and download volumes are also great bits of information to show impact.

An excerpt from a case study ending section. Here, text and accompanying charts are used to demonstrate the impact of the work done by the UX professional.

Reflections on your experiences

You can include some information that shows you have a clear understanding of how further work can build on the success of what you’ve already done. This demonstrates forward thinking and exploratory desire. Something else you can reflect on is your choices during the project. In every project, there might be things you could do differently or improve upon. But be aware that the natural question that follows such statements is this: “Well, so why haven’t you done it?”

Don’t shoot yourself in the foot by listing all the things you wish you could have done, but focus on what you’ve actually done and lay out future directions. For example, if you’ve done the user research in an ongoing project, don’t say, “ After all this user research, it would have been great to progress to a prototype, but it’s not yet done ”; instead, say, “ This user research is now enabling developers to quickly progress to the prototyping stage. ”

Acknowledgments

The end of the case study section is where you should put in your acknowledgments to any other members of your team, if this wasn’t a personal project. Your goal by doing so is to highlight your team spirit and humility in recognizing that great projects are most typically the result of collaboration . Be careful here, because it’s easy to make the waters muddy by not being explicit about what YOU did. So, for example, don’t write something like “ I couldn’t have done it without John X. and Jane Y. ”, but instead say this: “ My user research and prototype design fed into the development work carried out by John X. User testing was carried out by Jane Y., whose findings informed further re-design that I did on the prototypes. ”

What is a good length for a UX case study ending?

UX case studies must be kept short, and, when considering the length of your beginning, process and conclusion sections, it’s the beginning and the conclusion sections that should be the shortest of all. In some case studies, you can keep the ending to two or three short phrases. Other, longer case studies about more complex projects may require a slightly longer section.

Remember, though, that the end section is your chance for a last, short but impactful impression. If the hotel receptionist from our early example started to say goodbye and then went on and on to ask you about your experience, sharing with you the comments of other clients, or started talking to you about where you are going next, and why, and maybe if he had been there himself, started to tell you all about where to go and what to see, well… you get the point. Keep it short, sincere and focused. And certainly, don’t try to make the project sound more important than it was. Recruiters are not stupid – they’ve been there and done that, so they know.

Putting it all together

In the example below, we will show how you can address the points above using text. We are going to focus on the three main questions here, so you can see an example of this in action, for a longer case study.

An example ending section for a longer case study, addressing all aspects: Lessons, impact, reflection and acknowledgments.

Here is how we might structure the text for a shorter version of the same case study, focusing on the bare essentials:

An example ending section for a shorter case study, addressing the most critical aspects: Lessons, impact and reflection. Acknowledgments are being sacrificed for the sake of brevity here, but perhaps that’s OK – you might mention it in the middle part of the case study.

The Take Away

The end part of your case study needs as much care and attention as the rest of it does. You shouldn’t neglect it just because it’s the last thing in the case study. It’s not hard work if you know the basics, and here, we’ve given you the pointers you need to ensure that you don’t miss out anything important. The end part of the case study should leave your recruiters with a good (hopefully, very good) last impression of you and your work, so give it the thorough consideration it needs, to ensure it doesn’t undo all the hard work you’ve put into the case study.

References & Where to Learn More

Copyright holder: Andrew Hurley, Flickr. Copyright terms and license: CC BY-SA 2.0

Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Chapter: Human memory : A proposed system and its control processes. In Spence, K. W., & Spence, J. T. The psychology of learning and motivation (Volume 2). New York: Academic Press. pp. 89–195.

McLeod, S. (2008). Serial Position Effect

How to Create a UX Portfolio

Get Weekly Design Tips

Topics in this article, what you should read next, how to change your career from graphic design to ux design.

• 1.4k shares

How to Change Your Career from Marketing to UX Design

• 1.1k shares
• 3 years ago

How to Change Your Career from Web Design to UX Design

The Ultimate Guide to Understanding UX Roles and Which One You Should Go For

7 Tips to Improve Your UX Design Practice

How to create the perfect structure for a UX case study

7 Powerful Steps for Creating the Perfect Freelance CV

Tips for Writing a CV for a UX Job Application

15 Popular Reasons to Become a Freelancer or Entrepreneur

• 4 years ago

The Design Career Map – Learn How to Get Ahead in Your Work

Open Access—Link to us!

We believe in Open Access and the  democratization of knowledge . Unfortunately, world-class educational materials such as this page are normally hidden behind paywalls or in expensive textbooks.

If you want this to change , cite this article , link to us, or join us to help us democratize design knowledge !

Privacy Settings

Our digital services use necessary tracking technologies, including third-party cookies, for security, functionality, and to uphold user rights. Optional cookies offer enhanced features, and analytics.

Experience the full potential of our site that remembers your preferences and supports secure sign-in.

Governs the storage of data necessary for maintaining website security, user authentication, and fraud prevention mechanisms.

Enhanced Functionality

Saves your settings and preferences, like your location, for a more personalized experience.

Referral Program

We use cookies to enable our referral program, giving you and your friends discounts.

Error Reporting

We share user ID with Bugsnag and NewRelic to help us track errors and fix issues.

Optimize your experience by allowing us to monitor site usage. You’ll enjoy a smoother, more personalized journey without compromising your privacy.

Analytics Storage

Collects anonymous data on how you navigate and interact, helping us make informed improvements.

Differentiates real visitors from automated bots, ensuring accurate usage data and improving your website experience.

Lets us tailor your digital ads to match your interests, making them more relevant and useful to you.

Advertising Storage

Stores information for better-targeted advertising, enhancing your online ad experience.

Personalization Storage

Permits storing data to personalize content and ads across Google services based on user behavior, enhancing overall user experience.

Advertising Personalization

Allows for content and ad personalization across Google services based on user behavior. This consent enhances user experiences.

Enables personalizing ads based on user data and interactions, allowing for more relevant advertising experiences across Google services.

Receive more relevant advertisements by sharing your interests and behavior with our trusted advertising partners.

Enables better ad targeting and measurement on Meta platforms, making ads you see more relevant.

Allows for improved ad effectiveness and measurement through Meta’s Conversions API, ensuring privacy-compliant data sharing.

LinkedIn Insights

Tracks conversions, retargeting, and web analytics for LinkedIn ad campaigns, enhancing ad relevance and performance.

LinkedIn CAPI

Enhances LinkedIn advertising through server-side event tracking, offering more accurate measurement and personalization.

Google Ads Tag

Tracks ad performance and user engagement, helping deliver ads that are most useful to you.

Share Knowledge, Get Respect!

or copy link

Cite according to academic standards

Simply copy and paste the text below into your bibliographic reference list, onto your blog, or anywhere else. You can also just hyperlink to this article.

New to UX Design? We’re giving you a free ebook!

Download our free ebook The Basics of User Experience Design to learn about core concepts of UX design.

In 9 chapters, we’ll cover: conducting user interviews, design thinking, interaction design, mobile UX design, usability, UX research, and many more!

New to UX Design? We’re Giving You a Free ebook!

• AI Content Shield
• AI KW Research
• AI Assistant
• SEO Optimizer
• AI KW Clustering
• Customer reviews
• The NLO Revolution
• Press Center
• Help Center
• Content Resources
• Facebook Group

How to Write Effective Case Study Conclusions

Table of Contents

Not many people realize that the conclusion is vital to writing your case study. It should summarize the entire study, clarify all the research points, and focus on a few key takeaways.

There are several ways how to write case study conclusion . And we’re here to guide you with some easy and effective steps.

A good conclusion is interesting and captures the essence of your case. It needs to reflect your information and help the reader adopt your conclusion and act on it. Keep reading to learn how to do just that.

Importance of Your Case Study Conclusion

Your conclusion is an opportunity for you to summarize your findings and highlight what this study has taught you.

It should also summarize and draw out the main points you’ve discussed and reinforce the importance of your work. Remember, your last impression needs to be just as good as your first. You want to leave readers with something to think about or act on.

Types of Case Studies

Before we proceed on  how to write case study conclusion , let’s take a brief look at the different types of case studies.

There are different types of case studies depending on how they are structured, what is the target audience, and the research methodology used. And your conclusion may vary depending on the nature of the case study.

Some of the most common case studies are:

• Historical:  Historical events have a multitude of sources offering different perspectives. These perspectives can be applied, compared, and thoroughly analyzed in the modern world.
• Problem-oriented:  This type of case study is used for solving problems. You can use theoretical situations where you immerse yourself in a situation. Through this, you can thoroughly examine a problem and find ways to resolve it.
• Cumulative:  In a cumulative study, you gather information and offer comparisons. An example of this is a business case study that tells people about a product’s value.
• Critical:  Critical case studies focus on exploring the causes and effects of a particular situation. To do this, you can have varying amounts of research and various interviews.
• Illustrative:  In this case study, certain events are described, as well as the lessons learned.

How to Write Case Study Conclusion Effectively

Writing your conclusion doesn’t need to be complicated. Follow these steps to help you get started on an effective conclusion.

1. Inform the reader precisely why your case study and your findings are relevant

Your conclusion is where you point out the significance of your study. You can cite a specific case in your work and explain how it applies to other relevant cases.

2. Restate your thesis and your main findings

Remind your readers of the thesis statement you made in your introduction but don’t just copy it directly. Also, make sure to mention your main findings to back up your thesis.

3. Give a summary of previous case studies you reviewed

What did you discover that was different about your case? How was previous research helpful? Include this in your conclusion so readers can understand your work and how it contributes to expanding current knowledge.

4. End with recommendations

Wrap up your paper by explaining how your case study and findings could form part of future research on the topic. You can also express your recommendations by commenting on how certain studies, programs, or policies could be improved.

Make sure everything you write in your conclusion section is convincing enough to tell the reader that your case is an effective solution. And if the purpose of your case is complicated, make sure to sum it up in point form. This will help the reader review the case again before approaching the conclusion.

How Long Should Your Conclusion Be?

The length of your conclusion may vary depending on whether you’re writing a thesis or a dissertation. At least 5-9 percent of your overall word count should be dedicated to your conclusion.

Often, empirical scientific studies have brief conclusions describing the main findings and recommendations for future research. On the other hand, humanities topics or systematic reviews may require more space to conclude their analysis. They will need to integrate all the previous sections into an overall argument.

Wrapping Up

Your conclusion is an opportunity to translate and amplify the information you have put in the body of the paper.

More importantly, it is an opportunity to leave a lasting positive impression . Make the right impression by following these quick steps on  how to write case study conclusion  effectively.

Abir Ghenaiet

Abir is a data analyst and researcher. Among her interests are artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing. As a humanitarian and educator, she actively supports women in tech and promotes diversity.

Explore All Blog Post Conclusion Articles

A guide to writing a conclusion for a speech.

A quality speech or presentation is comparable to a quality play, film, or song. It begins by grabbing the listener’s…

• Blog Post Conclusion

The Ideal Length Of a Conclusion Paragraph

You have spent a lot of time writing your essay by the time you reach the final paragraph, so your…

Writing a Conclusion for Persuasive Essays!

Conclusions bring everything you have been discussing in your paper to a close. In the introduction and body paragraphs, you…

Clear Guide to Introduction & Conclusion Paragraphs Examples

The introduction and conclusion play a major role in academic essays. Writing these paragraphs typically requires much of your focus.…

Effective Guide to Write a Discussion & Conclusion

How to write a discussion and conclusion section of a paper? This is often one of the most confusing aspects,…

Importance of Good Conclusion Paragraph for a Research Paper

Writing a good conclusion paragraph for a research paper can sometimes be challenging. Writers often find it difficult to draft…

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

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

Research question

• Conceptual framework
• Conceptual vs. theoretical framework

Data collection

• Qualitative research methods
• Focus groups
• Observational research

What is a case study?

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

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

Case studies

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

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

Definition of a case study

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

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

Characteristics of case studies

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

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

The role of case studies in research

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

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

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

What is the purpose of a case study?

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

Why use case studies in qualitative research?

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

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

The explanatory, exploratory, and descriptive roles of case studies

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

The impact of case studies on knowledge development

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

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

Types of case studies

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

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

Exploratory case studies

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

Descriptive case studies

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

Explanatory case studies

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

Intrinsic, instrumental, and collective case studies

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

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

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

Critical information systems research

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

Health research

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

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

Asthma research studies

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

Other fields

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propositions

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

Units of analysis

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

Argumentation

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

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

Ready to jumpstart your research with ATLAS.ti?

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

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

Defining the research question

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

Selecting and defining the case

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

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

Developing a detailed case study protocol

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

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

Collecting data

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

Analyzing and interpreting data

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

Writing the case study report

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

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

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

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

Observations

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

Documents and artifacts

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

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

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

Ensuring the quality of data collection

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

Data analysis

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

Organizing the data

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

Categorizing and coding the data

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

Identifying patterns and themes

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

Interpreting the data

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

Verification of the data

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

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

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

Benefits include the following:

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

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

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

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

Ready to analyze your data with ATLAS.ti?

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

• Privacy Policy

Home » Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Table of Contents

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

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

Types of Case Study

Types and Methods of Case Study are as follows:

Single-Case Study

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

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

Multiple-Case Study

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

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

Exploratory Case Study

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

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

Descriptive Case Study

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

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

Instrumental Case Study

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

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

Case Study Data Collection Methods

Here are some common data collection methods for case studies:

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

Observations

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

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

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

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

How to conduct Case Study Research

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

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

Examples of Case Study

Here are some examples of case study research:

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

Application of Case Study

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

Business and Management

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

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

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

Social Sciences

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

Law and Ethics

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

Purpose of Case Study

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

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

Case studies can also serve other purposes, including:

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

Advantages of Case Study Research

There are several advantages of case study research, including:

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

Limitations of Case Study Research

There are several limitations of case study research, including:

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

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Questionnaire – Definition, Types, and Examples

Observational Research – Methods and Guide

Quantitative Research – Methods, Types and...

Qualitative Research Methods

Explanatory Research – Types, Methods, Guide

Survey Research – Types, Methods, Examples

What is the Case Study Method?

Overview Dropdown up

Overview dropdown down, celebrating 100 years of the case method at hbs.

The 2021-2022 academic year marks the 100-year anniversary of the introduction of the case method at Harvard Business School. Today, the HBS case method is employed in the HBS MBA program, in Executive Education programs, and in dozens of other business schools around the world. As Dean Srikant Datar's says, the case method has withstood the test of time.

Case Discussion Preparation Details Expand All Collapse All

In self-reflection in self-reflection dropdown down, in a small group setting in a small group setting dropdown down, in the classroom in the classroom dropdown down, beyond the classroom beyond the classroom dropdown down, how the case method creates value dropdown up, how the case method creates value dropdown down, in self-reflection, in a small group setting, in the classroom, beyond the classroom.

How Cases Unfold In the Classroom

How cases unfold in the classroom dropdown up, how cases unfold in the classroom dropdown down, preparation guidelines expand all collapse all, read the professor's assignment or discussion questions read the professor's assignment or discussion questions dropdown down, read the first few paragraphs and then skim the case read the first few paragraphs and then skim the case dropdown down, reread the case, underline text, and make margin notes reread the case, underline text, and make margin notes dropdown down, note the key problems on a pad of paper and go through the case again note the key problems on a pad of paper and go through the case again dropdown down, how to prepare for case discussions dropdown up, how to prepare for case discussions dropdown down, read the professor's assignment or discussion questions, read the first few paragraphs and then skim the case, reread the case, underline text, and make margin notes, note the key problems on a pad of paper and go through the case again, case study best practices expand all collapse all, prepare prepare dropdown down, discuss discuss dropdown down, participate participate dropdown down, relate relate dropdown down, apply apply dropdown down, note note dropdown down, understand understand dropdown down, case study best practices dropdown up, case study best practices dropdown down, participate, what can i expect on the first day dropdown down.

Most programs begin with registration, followed by an opening session and a dinner. If your travel plans necessitate late arrival, please be sure to notify us so that alternate registration arrangements can be made for you. Please note the following about registration:

HBS campus programs – Registration takes place in the Chao Center.

India programs – Registration takes place outside the classroom.

Other off-campus programs – Registration takes place in the designated facility.

What happens in class if nobody talks? Dropdown down

Professors are here to push everyone to learn, but not to embarrass anyone. If the class is quiet, they'll often ask a participant with experience in the industry in which the case is set to speak first. This is done well in advance so that person can come to class prepared to share. Trust the process. The more open you are, the more willing you’ll be to engage, and the more alive the classroom will become.

Does everyone take part in "role-playing"? Dropdown down

Professors often encourage participants to take opposing sides and then debate the issues, often taking the perspective of the case protagonists or key decision makers in the case.

View Frequently Asked Questions

Subscribe to Our Emails

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

What Is a Case Study?

Weighing the pros and cons of this method of research

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

Cara Lustik is a fact-checker and copywriter.

Verywell / Colleen Tighe

• Pros and Cons

What Types of Case Studies Are Out There?

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

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

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

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

At a Glance

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

What Are the Benefits and Limitations of Case Studies?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Study Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 1: A Case History

This section will have the following structure and content:

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

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

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

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

Section 2: Treatment Plan

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

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

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

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

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

Need More Tips?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Study Research Method in Psychology

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

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

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

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

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

On This Page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Famous Case Studies

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

Clinical Case Studies

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

Child Psychology Case Studies

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

Types of Case Studies

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

Where Do You Find Data for a Case Study?

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

1. Primary sources

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

2. Secondary sources

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

3. Archival records

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

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

4. Organizational records

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

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

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

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

How do I Write a Case Study in Psychology?

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

1. Introduction

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

2. Case Presentation

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

3. Management and Outcome

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

4. Discussion

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

5. Additional Items

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limitations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further Information

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

Related Articles

Research Methodology

Qualitative Data Coding

What Is a Focus Group?

Cross-Cultural Research Methodology In Psychology

What Is Internal Validity In Research?

Research Methodology , Statistics

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

Criterion Validity: Definition & Examples

• 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

What the Case Study Method Really Teaches

• Nitin Nohria

Seven meta-skills that stick even if the cases fade from memory.

It’s been 100 years since Harvard Business School began using the case study method. Beyond teaching specific subject matter, the case study method excels in instilling meta-skills in students. This article explains the importance of seven such skills: preparation, discernment, bias recognition, judgement, collaboration, curiosity, and self-confidence.

During my decade as dean of Harvard Business School, I spent hundreds of hours talking with our alumni. To enliven these conversations, I relied on a favorite question: “What was the most important thing you learned from your time in our MBA program?”

• Nitin Nohria is the George F. Baker Jr. and Distinguished Service University Professor. He served as the 10th dean of Harvard Business School, from 2010 to 2020.

Partner Center

All You Wanted to Know About How to Write a Case Study

What do you study in your college? If you are a psychology, sociology, or anthropology student, we bet you might be familiar with what a case study is. This research method is used to study a certain person, group, or situation. In this guide from our dissertation writing service , you will learn how to write a case study professionally, from researching to citing sources properly. Also, we will explore different types of case studies and show you examples — so that you won’t have any other questions left.

What Is a Case Study?

A case study is a subcategory of research design which investigates problems and offers solutions. Case studies can range from academic research studies to corporate promotional tools trying to sell an idea—their scope is quite vast.

What Is the Difference Between a Research Paper and a Case Study?

While research papers turn the reader’s attention to a certain problem, case studies go even further. Case study guidelines require students to pay attention to details, examining issues closely and in-depth using different research methods. For example, case studies may be used to examine court cases if you study Law, or a patient's health history if you study Medicine. Case studies are also used in Marketing, which are thorough, empirically supported analysis of a good or service's performance. Well-designed case studies can be valuable for prospective customers as they can identify and solve the potential customers pain point.

Case studies involve a lot of storytelling – they usually examine particular cases for a person or a group of people. This method of research is very helpful, as it is very practical and can give a lot of hands-on information. Most commonly, the length of the case study is about 500-900 words, which is much less than the length of an average research paper.

The structure of a case study is very similar to storytelling. It has a protagonist or main character, which in your case is actually a problem you are trying to solve. You can use the system of 3 Acts to make it a compelling story. It should have an introduction, rising action, a climax where transformation occurs, falling action, and a solution.

Here is a rough formula for you to use in your case study:

Problem (Act I): > Solution (Act II) > Result (Act III) > Conclusion.

Types of Case Studies

The purpose of a case study is to provide detailed reports on an event, an institution, a place, future customers, or pretty much anything. There are a few common types of case study, but the type depends on the topic. The following are the most common domains where case studies are needed:

• Historical case studies are great to learn from. Historical events have a multitude of source info offering different perspectives. There are always modern parallels where these perspectives can be applied, compared, and thoroughly analyzed.
• Problem-oriented case studies are usually used for solving problems. These are often assigned as theoretical situations where you need to immerse yourself in the situation to examine it. Imagine you’re working for a startup and you’ve just noticed a significant flaw in your product’s design. Before taking it to the senior manager, you want to do a comprehensive study on the issue and provide solutions. On a greater scale, problem-oriented case studies are a vital part of relevant socio-economic discussions.
• Cumulative case studies collect information and offer comparisons. In business, case studies are often used to tell people about the value of a product.
• Critical case studies explore the causes and effects of a certain case.
• Illustrative case studies describe certain events, investigating outcomes and lessons learned.

Need a compelling case study? EssayPro has got you covered. Our experts are ready to provide you with detailed, insightful case studies that capture the essence of real-world scenarios. Elevate your academic work with our professional assistance.

Case Study Format

The case study format is typically made up of eight parts:

• Executive Summary. Explain what you will examine in the case study. Write an overview of the field you’re researching. Make a thesis statement and sum up the results of your observation in a maximum of 2 sentences.
• Background. Provide background information and the most relevant facts. Isolate the issues.
• Case Evaluation. Isolate the sections of the study you want to focus on. In it, explain why something is working or is not working.
• Proposed Solutions. Offer realistic ways to solve what isn’t working or how to improve its current condition. Explain why these solutions work by offering testable evidence.
• Conclusion. Summarize the main points from the case evaluations and proposed solutions. 6. Recommendations. Talk about the strategy that you should choose. Explain why this choice is the most appropriate.
• Implementation. Explain how to put the specific strategies into action.
• References. Provide all the citations.

How to Write a Case Study

Let's discover how to write a case study.

Setting Up the Research

When writing a case study, remember that research should always come first. Reading many different sources and analyzing other points of view will help you come up with more creative solutions. You can also conduct an actual interview to thoroughly investigate the customer story that you'll need for your case study. Including all of the necessary research, writing a case study may take some time. The research process involves doing the following:

• Define your objective. Explain the reason why you’re presenting your subject. Figure out where you will feature your case study; whether it is written, on video, shown as an infographic, streamed as a podcast, etc.
• Determine who will be the right candidate for your case study. Get permission, quotes, and other features that will make your case study effective. Get in touch with your candidate to see if they approve of being part of your work. Study that candidate’s situation and note down what caused it.
• Identify which various consequences could result from the situation. Follow these guidelines on how to start a case study: surf the net to find some general information you might find useful.
• Make a list of credible sources and examine them. Seek out important facts and highlight problems. Always write down your ideas and make sure to brainstorm.
• Focus on several key issues – why they exist, and how they impact your research subject. Think of several unique solutions. Draw from class discussions, readings, and personal experience. When writing a case study, focus on the best solution and explore it in depth. After having all your research in place, writing a case study will be easy. You may first want to check the rubric and criteria of your assignment for the correct case study structure.

Read Also: ' WHAT IS A CREDIBLE SOURCES ?'

Although your instructor might be looking at slightly different criteria, every case study rubric essentially has the same standards. Your professor will want you to exhibit 8 different outcomes:

• Correctly identify the concepts, theories, and practices in the discipline.
• Identify the relevant theories and principles associated with the particular study.
• Evaluate legal and ethical principles and apply them to your decision-making.
• Recognize the global importance and contribution of your case.
• Construct a coherent summary and explanation of the study.
• Demonstrate analytical and critical-thinking skills.
• Explain the interrelationships between the environment and nature.
• Integrate theory and practice of the discipline within the analysis.

Need Case Study DONE FAST?

Pick a topic, tell us your requirements and get your paper on time.

Case Study Outline

Let's look at the structure of an outline based on the issue of the alcoholic addiction of 30 people.

Introduction

• Statement of the issue: Alcoholism is a disease rather than a weakness of character.
• Presentation of the problem: Alcoholism is affecting more than 14 million people in the USA, which makes it the third most common mental illness there.
• Explanation of the terms: In the past, alcoholism was commonly referred to as alcohol dependence or alcohol addiction. Alcoholism is now the more severe stage of this addiction in the disorder spectrum.
• Hypotheses: Drinking in excess can lead to the use of other drugs.
• Importance of your story: How the information you present can help people with their addictions.
• Background of the story: Include an explanation of why you chose this topic.
• Presentation of analysis and data: Describe the criteria for choosing 30 candidates, the structure of the interview, and the outcomes.
• Strong argument 1: ex. X% of candidates dealing with anxiety and depression...
• Strong argument 2: ex. X amount of people started drinking by their mid-teens.
• Strong argument 3: ex. X% of respondents’ parents had issues with alcohol.
• Concluding statement: I have researched if alcoholism is a disease and found out that…
• Recommendations: Ways and actions for preventing alcohol use.

Writing a Case Study Draft

After you’ve done your case study research and written the outline, it’s time to focus on the draft. In a draft, you have to develop and write your case study by using: the data which you collected throughout the research, interviews, and the analysis processes that were undertaken. Follow these rules for the draft:

• Your draft should contain at least 4 sections: an introduction; a body where you should include background information, an explanation of why you decided to do this case study, and a presentation of your main findings; a conclusion where you present data; and references.
• In the introduction, you should set the pace very clearly. You can even raise a question or quote someone you interviewed in the research phase. It must provide adequate background information on the topic. The background may include analyses of previous studies on your topic. Include the aim of your case here as well. Think of it as a thesis statement. The aim must describe the purpose of your work—presenting the issues that you want to tackle. Include background information, such as photos or videos you used when doing the research.
• Describe your unique research process, whether it was through interviews, observations, academic journals, etc. The next point includes providing the results of your research. Tell the audience what you found out. Why is this important, and what could be learned from it? Discuss the real implications of the problem and its significance in the world.
• Include quotes and data (such as findings, percentages, and awards). This will add a personal touch and better credibility to the case you present. Explain what results you find during your interviews in regards to the problem and how it developed. Also, write about solutions which have already been proposed by other people who have already written about this case.
• At the end of your case study, you should offer possible solutions, but don’t worry about solving them yourself.

Use Data to Illustrate Key Points in Your Case Study

Even though your case study is a story, it should be based on evidence. Use as much data as possible to illustrate your point. Without the right data, your case study may appear weak and the readers may not be able to relate to your issue as much as they should. Let's see the examples from essay writing service :

‍ With data: Alcoholism is affecting more than 14 million people in the USA, which makes it the third most common mental illness there. Without data: A lot of people suffer from alcoholism in the United States.

Try to include as many credible sources as possible. You may have terms or sources that could be hard for other cultures to understand. If this is the case, you should include them in the appendix or Notes for the Instructor or Professor.

Finalizing the Draft: Checklist

After you finish drafting your case study, polish it up by answering these ‘ask yourself’ questions and think about how to end your case study:

• Check that you follow the correct case study format, also in regards to text formatting.
• Check that your work is consistent with its referencing and citation style.
• Micro-editing — check for grammar and spelling issues.
• Macro-editing — does ‘the big picture’ come across to the reader? Is there enough raw data, such as real-life examples or personal experiences? Have you made your data collection process completely transparent? Does your analysis provide a clear conclusion, allowing for further research and practice?

Problems to avoid:

• Overgeneralization – Do not go into further research that deviates from the main problem.
• Failure to Document Limitations – 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.
• 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.

How to Create a Title Page and Cite a Case Study

Let's see how to create an awesome title page.

Your title page depends on the prescribed citation format. The title page should include:

• A title that attracts some attention and describes your study
• The title should have the words “case study” in it
• The title should range between 5-9 words in length
• Your name and contact information
• Your finished paper should be only 500 to 1,500 words in length.With this type of assignment, write effectively and avoid fluff

Here is a template for the APA and MLA format title page:

There are some cases when you need to cite someone else's study in your own one – therefore, you need to master how to cite a case study. A case study is like a research paper when it comes to citations. You can cite it like you cite a book, depending on what style you need.

Citation Example in MLA ‍ Hill, Linda, Tarun Khanna, and Emily A. Stecker. HCL Technologies. Boston: Harvard Business Publishing, 2008. Print.

Citation Example in APA ‍ Hill, L., Khanna, T., & Stecker, E. A. (2008). HCL Technologies. Boston: Harvard Business Publishing.

Citation Example in Chicago Hill, Linda, Tarun Khanna, and Emily A. Stecker. HCL Technologies.

Case Study Examples

To give you an idea of a professional case study example, we gathered and linked some below.

Eastman Kodak Case Study

Case Study Example: Audi Trains Mexican Autoworkers in Germany

To conclude, a case study is one of the best methods of getting an overview of what happened to a person, a group, or a situation in practice. It allows you to have an in-depth glance at the real-life problems that businesses, healthcare industry, criminal justice, etc. may face. This insight helps us look at such situations in a different light. This is because we see scenarios that we otherwise would not, without necessarily being there. If you need custom essays , try our research paper writing services .

Get Help Form Qualified Writers

Crafting a case study is not easy. You might want to write one of high quality, but you don’t have the time or expertise. If you’re having trouble with your case study, help with essay request - we'll help. EssayPro writers have read and written countless case studies and are experts in endless disciplines. Request essay writing, editing, or proofreading assistance from our custom case study writing service , and all of your worries will be gone.

Don't Know Where to Start?

Crafting a case study is not easy. You might want to write one of high quality, but you don’t have the time or expertise. Request ' write my case study ' assistance from our service.

What Is A Case Study?

How to cite a case study in apa, how to write a case study.

Daniel Parker

is a seasoned educational writer focusing on scholarship guidance, research papers, and various forms of academic essays including reflective and narrative essays. His expertise also extends to detailed case studies. A scholar with a background in English Literature and Education, Daniel’s work on EssayPro blog aims to support students in achieving academic excellence and securing scholarships. His hobbies include reading classic literature and participating in academic forums.

is an expert in nursing and healthcare, with a strong background in history, law, and literature. Holding advanced degrees in nursing and public health, his analytical approach and comprehensive knowledge help students navigate complex topics. On EssayPro blog, Adam provides insightful articles on everything from historical analysis to the intricacies of healthcare policies. In his downtime, he enjoys historical documentaries and volunteering at local clinics.

Related Articles

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definitions of qualitative case study research

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

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

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

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

Current methodological issues in qualitative case study research

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

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

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

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

Assessment of rigour

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

Framework for assessing quality in qualitative case study research.

Adapted from Stake ( 1995 , p. 131).

Study design

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

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

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

Search strategy

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

Outcomes of search of qualitative methods journals.

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

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

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

Case study methodology or method

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

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

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

Case study of something particular and case selection

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

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

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

Contextually bound case study

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

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

Article synopsis of case study research using Stake's tradition

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

Article synopsis of case study research using Yin's tradition

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

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

Researcher and case interactions and triangulation

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

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

Study design inconsistent with methodology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limitations of the review

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

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

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

Conflict of interest and funding

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

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

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 9. The Conclusion
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

The conclusion is intended to help the reader understand why your research should matter to them after they have finished reading the paper. A conclusion is not merely a summary of the main topics covered or a re-statement of your research problem, but a synthesis of key points derived from the findings of your study and, if applicable, where you recommend new areas for future research. For most college-level research papers, two or three well-developed paragraphs is sufficient for a conclusion, although in some cases, more paragraphs may be required in describing the key findings and their significance.

Conclusions. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Conclusions. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.

Importance of a Good Conclusion

A well-written conclusion provides you with important opportunities to demonstrate to the reader your understanding of the research problem. These include:

• Presenting the last word on the issues you raised in your paper . Just as the introduction gives a first impression to your reader, the conclusion offers a chance to leave a lasting impression. Do this, for example, by highlighting key findings in your analysis that advance new understanding about the research problem, that are unusual or unexpected, or that have important implications applied to practice.
• Summarizing your thoughts and conveying the larger significance of your study . The conclusion is an opportunity to succinctly re-emphasize  your answer to the "So What?" question by placing the study within the context of how your research advances past research about the topic.
• Identifying how a gap in the literature has been addressed . The conclusion can be where you describe how a previously identified gap in the literature [first identified in your literature review section] has been addressed by your research and why this contribution is significant.
• Demonstrating the importance of your ideas . Don't be shy. The conclusion offers an opportunity to elaborate on the impact and significance of your findings. This is particularly important if your study approached examining the research problem from an unusual or innovative perspective.
• Introducing possible new or expanded ways of thinking about the research problem . This does not refer to introducing new information [which should be avoided], but to offer new insight and creative approaches for framing or contextualizing the research problem based on the results of your study.

Bunton, David. “The Structure of PhD Conclusion Chapters.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (July 2005): 207–224; Conclusions. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Kretchmer, Paul. Twelve Steps to Writing an Effective Conclusion. San Francisco Edit, 2003-2008; Conclusions. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Assan, Joseph. "Writing the Conclusion Chapter: The Good, the Bad and the Missing." Liverpool: Development Studies Association (2009): 1-8.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  General Rules

The general function of your paper's conclusion is to restate the main argument . It reminds the reader of the strengths of your main argument(s) and reiterates the most important evidence supporting those argument(s). Do this by clearly summarizing the context, background, and necessity of pursuing the research problem you investigated in relation to an issue, controversy, or a gap found in the literature. However, make sure that your conclusion is not simply a repetitive summary of the findings. This reduces the impact of the argument(s) you have developed in your paper.

When writing the conclusion to your paper, follow these general rules:

• Present your conclusions in clear, concise language. Re-state the purpose of your study, then describe how your findings differ or support those of other studies and why [i.e., what were the unique, new, or crucial contributions your study made to the overall research about your topic?].
• Do not simply reiterate your findings or the discussion of your results. Provide a synthesis of arguments presented in the paper to show how these converge to address the research problem and the overall objectives of your study.
• Indicate opportunities for future research if you haven't already done so in the discussion section of your paper. Highlighting the need for further research provides the reader with evidence that you have an in-depth awareness of the research problem but that further investigations should take place beyond the scope of your investigation.

Consider the following points to help ensure your conclusion is presented well:

• If the argument or purpose of your paper is complex, you may need to summarize the argument 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 end of your paper to describe your main points and explain their significance.
• Move from a detailed to a general level of consideration that returns the topic to the context provided by the introduction or within a new context that emerges from the data [this is opposite of the introduction, which begins with general discussion of the context and ends with a detailed description of the research problem]. 

The conclusion also provides a place for you to persuasively and succinctly restate the research problem, given that the reader has now been presented with all the information about the topic . Depending on the discipline you are writing in, the concluding paragraph may contain your reflections on the evidence presented. However, the nature of being introspective about the research you have conducted will depend on the topic and whether your professor wants you to express your observations in this way. If asked to think introspectively about the topics, do not delve into idle speculation. Being introspective means looking within yourself as an author to try and understand an issue more deeply, not to guess at possible outcomes or make up scenarios not supported by the evidence.

II.  Developing a Compelling Conclusion

Although an effective conclusion needs to be clear and succinct, it does not need to be written passively or lack a compelling narrative. Strategies to help you move beyond merely summarizing the key points of your research paper may include any of the following:

• If your essay deals with a critical, contemporary problem, warn readers of the possible consequences of not attending to the problem proactively.
• Recommend a specific course or courses of action that, if adopted, could address a specific problem in practice or in the development of new knowledge leading to positive change.
• Cite a relevant quotation or expert opinion already noted in your paper in order to lend authority and support to the conclusion(s) you have reached [a good source would be from your literature review].
• Explain the consequences of your research in a way that elicits action or demonstrates urgency in seeking change.
• Restate a key statistic, fact, or visual image to emphasize the most important finding of your paper.
• If your discipline encourages personal reflection, illustrate your concluding point by drawing from your own life experiences.
• Return to an anecdote, an example, or a quotation that you presented in your introduction, but add further insight derived from the findings of your study; use your interpretation of results from your study to recast it in new or important ways.
• Provide a "take-home" message in the form of a succinct, declarative statement that you want the reader to remember about your study.

III. Problems to Avoid

Failure to be concise Your conclusion section should be concise and to the point. Conclusions that are too lengthy often have unnecessary information in them. The conclusion is not the place for details about your methodology or results. Although you should give a summary of what was learned from your research, this summary should be relatively brief, since the emphasis in the conclusion is on the implications, evaluations, insights, and other forms of analysis that you make. Strategies for writing concisely can be found here .

Failure to comment on larger, more significant issues In the introduction, your task was to move from the general [the field of study] to the specific [the research problem]. However, in the conclusion, your task is to move from a specific discussion [your research problem] back to a general discussion framed around the implications and significance of your findings [i.e., how your research contributes new understanding or fills an important gap in the literature]. In short, the conclusion is where you should place your research within a larger context [visualize your paper as an hourglass--start with a broad introduction and review of the literature, move to the specific analysis and discussion, conclude with a broad summary of the study's implications and significance].

Failure to reveal problems and negative results Negative aspects of the research process should never be ignored. These are problems, deficiencies, or challenges encountered during your study. They should be summarized as a way of qualifying your overall conclusions. If you encountered negative or unintended results [i.e., findings that are validated outside the research context in which they were generated], you must report them in the results section and discuss their implications in the discussion section of your paper. In the conclusion, use negative results as an opportunity to explain their possible significance and/or how they may form the basis for future research.

Failure to provide a clear summary of what was learned In order to be able to discuss how your research fits within your field of study [and possibly the world at large], you need to summarize briefly and succinctly how it contributes to new knowledge or a new understanding about the research problem. This element of your conclusion may be only a few sentences long.

Failure to match the objectives of your research Often research objectives in the social and behavioral sciences change while the research is being carried out. This is not a problem unless you forget to go back and refine the original objectives in your introduction. As these changes emerge they must be documented so that they accurately reflect what you were trying to accomplish in your research [not what you thought you might accomplish when you began].

Resist the urge to apologize If you've immersed yourself in studying the research problem, you presumably should know a good deal about it [perhaps even more than your professor!]. Nevertheless, by the time you have finished writing, you may be having some doubts about what you have produced. Repress those doubts! Don't undermine your authority as a researcher by saying something like, "This is just one approach to examining this problem; there may be other, much better approaches that...." The overall tone of your conclusion should convey confidence to the reader about the study's validity and realiability.

Assan, Joseph. "Writing the Conclusion Chapter: The Good, the Bad and the Missing." Liverpool: Development Studies Association (2009): 1-8; Concluding Paragraphs. College Writing Center at Meramec. St. Louis Community College; Conclusions. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Conclusions. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Freedman, Leora  and Jerry Plotnick. Introductions and Conclusions. The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Leibensperger, Summer. Draft Your Conclusion. Academic Center, the University of Houston-Victoria, 2003; Make Your Last Words Count. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin Madison; Miquel, Fuster-Marquez and Carmen Gregori-Signes. “Chapter Six: ‘Last but Not Least:’ Writing the Conclusion of Your Paper.” In Writing an Applied Linguistics Thesis or Dissertation: A Guide to Presenting Empirical Research . John Bitchener, editor. (Basingstoke,UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), pp. 93-105; Tips for Writing a Good Conclusion. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Kretchmer, Paul. Twelve Steps to Writing an Effective Conclusion. San Francisco Edit, 2003-2008; Writing Conclusions. Writing Tutorial Services, Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. Indiana University; Writing: Considering Structure and Organization. Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College.

Writing Tip

Don't Belabor the Obvious!

Avoid phrases like "in conclusion...," "in summary...," or "in closing...." These phrases can be useful, even welcome, in oral presentations. But readers can see by the tell-tale section heading and number of pages remaining that they are reaching the end of your paper. You'll irritate your readers if you belabor the obvious.

Assan, Joseph. "Writing the Conclusion Chapter: The Good, the Bad and the Missing." Liverpool: Development Studies Association (2009): 1-8.

Another Writing Tip

New Insight, Not New Information!

Don't surprise the reader with new information in your conclusion that was never referenced anywhere else in the paper. This why the conclusion rarely has citations to sources. If you have new information to present, add it to the discussion or other appropriate section of the paper. Note that, although no new information is introduced, the conclusion, along with the discussion section, is where you offer your most "original" contributions in the paper; the conclusion is where you describe the value of your research, demonstrate that you understand the material that you’ve presented, and position your findings within the larger context of scholarship on the topic, including describing how your research contributes new insights to that scholarship.

Assan, Joseph. "Writing the Conclusion Chapter: The Good, the Bad and the Missing." Liverpool: Development Studies Association (2009): 1-8; Conclusions. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina.

• << Previous: Limitations of the Study
• Next: Appendices >>
• Last Updated: May 22, 2024 12:03 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• Books, Journals, Papers
• Life Around The World
• Research Methods
• Sociology Theorists
• Functionalism
• Postmodernism
• Social Constructionism
• Structuralism
• Symbolic Interactionism
• Sociology of Crime & Deviance
• Sociology of Art
• Sociology of Dance
• Sociology of Food
• Sociology of Sport
• Sociology of Disability
• Sociology of Economics
• Sociology of Education
• Sociology of Family
• Sociology of Gender
• Sociology of Health
• Sociology of Identity
• Sociology of Ideology
• Sociology of Inequalities
• Sociology of Anime
• Sociology of Film
• Sociology of Gaming
• Sociology of Literature
• Sociology of Music
• Sociology of TV
• Sociology of Nature & Environment
• Sociology of Politics
• Sociology of Power
• Sociology of Race & Ethnicity
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Sexuality
• Sociology of Social Movements
• Sociology of Technology
• Sociology of the Life Course
• Sociology of Violence & Conflict
• Sociology of Work
• Sociology of Travel & Tourism
• Urban Sociology
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions

Understanding the Case Study Method in Sociology

In the field of sociology, researchers employ various methods to study and understand social phenomena. One such method is the case study. A case study is an in-depth investigation of a particular individual, group, or event, aiming to provide a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. In this article, we will outline and explain the case study method in sociology and its significance in social research.

Defining the Case Study Method

The case study method involves the detailed examination of a single case or a small number of cases. It is a qualitative research method that focuses on understanding the complexities and intricacies of a particular social phenomenon. Researchers using the case study method collect and analyze a wide range of data, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts, to gain a holistic understanding of the case under investigation.

Case studies can be conducted in various social contexts, such as educational institutions, communities, organizations, or even entire societies. The subjects of study can be individuals, groups, or events that are considered representative or unique in some way.

Purposes of Case Studies in Sociology

Case studies serve several purposes in sociological research:

1. Exploratory Purposes

Case studies can be used to explore new or emerging social phenomena that have not been extensively studied before. By conducting in-depth investigations, researchers can generate new insights and theories about the subject matter.

2. Descriptive Purposes

Case studies can provide rich and detailed descriptions of specific social situations or events. They allow researchers to capture the complexity and uniqueness of a case, providing a comprehensive account of the social dynamics at play.

3. Explanatory Purposes

Case studies can help researchers understand the underlying causes and mechanisms behind social phenomena. By analyzing various aspects of a case, researchers can identify patterns, relationships, and factors that contribute to the observed outcomes.

4. Theory Testing and Development

Case studies can be used to test existing sociological theories or develop new ones. By examining a specific case in light of theoretical frameworks, researchers can evaluate the applicability and validity of these theories.

Steps Involved in Conducting a Case Study

The process of conducting a case study in sociology typically involves the following steps:

1. Selecting a Case

Researchers must carefully choose a case that is relevant to their research question and aligns with their research objectives. The case should provide sufficient depth and complexity to explore the desired aspects of the social phenomenon under investigation.

2. Collecting Data

Data collection in case studies involves a combination of methods, including interviews, observations, and document analysis. Researchers may conduct interviews with key individuals involved in the case, observe the case in its natural setting, and analyze relevant documents and artifacts.

3. Analyzing Data

Once the data is collected, researchers analyze it to identify patterns, themes, and relationships. They may use various analytical frameworks, such as content analysis or thematic analysis, to make sense of the data and draw meaningful conclusions.

4. Drawing Conclusions

Based on the analysis of the data, researchers draw conclusions about the case under investigation. These conclusions should be supported by evidence and contribute to the existing body of sociological knowledge.

5. Generalizing Findings

While case studies focus on specific cases, researchers may attempt to generalize their findings to broader contexts or populations. However, it is important to note that generalizability in case studies is limited, and findings are often context-specific.

Advantages and Limitations of Case Studies

Case studies offer several advantages in sociological research:

• They provide rich and detailed insights into complex social phenomena.
• They allow researchers to explore new or unique cases.
• They facilitate theory testing and development.
• They offer a holistic and in-depth understanding of the subject matter.

However, case studies also have limitations:

• They are time-consuming and resource-intensive.
• They may suffer from researcher bias or subjectivity.
• Their findings may lack generalizability to broader populations.
• They do not provide causal explanations but rather focus on descriptive and explanatory aspects.

The case study method is a valuable tool in sociology for exploring, describing, explaining, and testing social phenomena. By conducting in-depth investigations of specific cases, researchers can gain a comprehensive understanding of the complexities and dynamics of the social world. While case studies have their limitations, they offer unique insights that contribute to the broader field of sociological knowledge.

Mr Edwards has a PhD in sociology and 10 years of experience in sociological knowledge

Related Articles

The Importance of Data Archives in Sociological Research

Learn about the importance of data archives in sociology and how they contribute to sociological research. Explore different types of...

Understanding the Gini Coefficient in Sociology

Learn about the Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality in society. Understand how to calculate the Gini coefficient and...

Understanding Casework in Sociology

Understanding Cash Crops in Sociology

Understanding Cathexis in Sociology

Get the latest sociology, recommended.

The Concept of Urbanism: An Outline and Explanation in Sociology

Credentialism in Sociology: An Outline and Explanation

Popular story.

Pierre Bourdieu’s Symbolic Violence: An Outline and Explanation

The functionalist perspective on gender in sociology, the symbolic interactionist view of gender: an in-depth analysis, understanding social class inequality: a sociological perspective, talcott parsons: a pioneer of functionalism in sociology.

Easy Sociology makes sociology as easy as possible. Our aim is to make sociology accessible for everybody. © 2023 Easy Sociology

© 2023 Easy Sociology

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections
• How to Write Discussions and Conclusions

The discussion section contains the results and outcomes of a study. An effective discussion informs readers what can be learned from your experiment and provides context for the results.

What makes an effective discussion?

When you’re ready to write your discussion, you’ve already introduced the purpose of your study and provided an in-depth description of the methodology. The discussion informs readers about the larger implications of your study based on the results. Highlighting these implications while not overstating the findings can be challenging, especially when you’re submitting to a journal that selects articles based on novelty or potential impact. Regardless of what journal you are submitting to, the discussion section always serves the same purpose: concluding what your study results actually mean.

A successful discussion section puts your findings in context. It should include:

• the results of your research,
• a discussion of related research, and
• a comparison between your results and initial hypothesis.

Tip: Not all journals share the same naming conventions.

You can apply the advice in this article to the conclusion, results or discussion sections of your manuscript.

Our Early Career Researcher community tells us that the conclusion is often considered the most difficult aspect of a manuscript to write. To help, this guide provides questions to ask yourself, a basic structure to model your discussion off of and examples from published manuscripts. 

Questions to ask yourself:

• Was my hypothesis correct?
• If my hypothesis is partially correct or entirely different, what can be learned from the results? 
• How do the conclusions reshape or add onto the existing knowledge in the field? What does previous research say about the topic? 
• Why are the results important or relevant to your audience? Do they add further evidence to a scientific consensus or disprove prior studies? 
• How can future research build on these observations? What are the key experiments that must be done? 
• What is the “take-home” message you want your reader to leave with?

How to structure a discussion

Trying to fit a complete discussion into a single paragraph can add unnecessary stress to the writing process. If possible, you’ll want to give yourself two or three paragraphs to give the reader a comprehensive understanding of your study as a whole. Here’s one way to structure an effective discussion:

Writing Tips

While the above sections can help you brainstorm and structure your discussion, there are many common mistakes that writers revert to when having difficulties with their paper. Writing a discussion can be a delicate balance between summarizing your results, providing proper context for your research and avoiding introducing new information. Remember that your paper should be both confident and honest about the results! 

• Read the journal’s guidelines on the discussion and conclusion sections. If possible, learn about the guidelines before writing the discussion to ensure you’re writing to meet their expectations. 
• Begin with a clear statement of the principal findings. This will reinforce the main take-away for the reader and set up the rest of the discussion. 
• Explain why the outcomes of your study are important to the reader. Discuss the implications of your findings realistically based on previous literature, highlighting both the strengths and limitations of the research. 
• State whether the results prove or disprove your hypothesis. If your hypothesis was disproved, what might be the reasons? 
• Introduce new or expanded ways to think about the research question. Indicate what next steps can be taken to further pursue any unresolved questions. 
• If dealing with a contemporary or ongoing problem, such as climate change, discuss possible consequences if the problem is avoided. 
• Be concise. Adding unnecessary detail can distract from the main findings. 

Don’t

• Rewrite your abstract. Statements with “we investigated” or “we studied” generally do not belong in the discussion. 
• Include new arguments or evidence not previously discussed. Necessary information and evidence should be introduced in the main body of the paper. 
• Apologize. Even if your research contains significant limitations, don’t undermine your authority by including statements that doubt your methodology or execution. 
• Shy away from speaking on limitations or negative results. Including limitations and negative results will give readers a complete understanding of the presented research. Potential limitations include sources of potential bias, threats to internal or external validity, barriers to implementing an intervention and other issues inherent to the study design. 
• Overstate the importance of your findings. Making grand statements about how a study will fully resolve large questions can lead readers to doubt the success of the research. 

Snippets of Effective Discussions:

Consumer-based actions to reduce plastic pollution in rivers: A multi-criteria decision analysis approach

Identifying reliable indicators of fitness in polar bears

• How to Write a Great Title
• How to Write an Abstract
• How to Write Your Methods
• How to Report Statistics
• How to Edit Your Work

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

Digital Methods in Economic History: The Case of Computational Text Analysis

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 23 May 2024
• pp 2661–2688
• Cite this reference work entry

• Lino Wehrheim 3  

In the last two decades, there has been a considerable increase in the supply of digital resources available to economic historians. At the same time, scholars have started to use innovative methods and technologies to study these digital sources. In this chapter, I will focus on one of these approaches – computational text analysis (CTA), also known as text mining – that has a great potential for economic historians. Firstly, I will provide an overview of examples of CTA that are relevant to economic historians, illustrating certain trends that have emerged so far. Secondly, to give a hands-on example of this kind of approach, I conduct a case study in which I apply a certain type of CTA, that is, topic-modelling, to a corpus of more than 17,000 research articles published in ten international economics and economic history journals since 1949. Covering flagship journals that represent the wide range of both fields, such as The American Economic Review, The Economic History Review , The Journal of Economic History , and The Journal of Economic Literature , I quantitatively compare the similarity of economics and economic history in terms of their research topics. Finally, I give a brief outlook on digital methods beyond the limits of CTA as well as some general reflections on the use of digital methods in our field.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

This might be the most fundamental difference to the “traditional” humanities with their expertise in dealing with ambiguities. See also the final section.

An exception to this observation can be found in the series “Current Research in Digital History” published by the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media. See https://crdh.rrchnm.org (last access July 12, 2022).

Ash and Hansen ( 2023 ) provide a similar, though more technical, review article on methods for text analysis in economics. Other helpful introductions to textual analysis are provided by Gentzkow et al. ( 2019 ), Grimmer and Stewart ( 2013 ), Grimmer et al. ( 2022 ).

An example of studies that quantify textual sources without the help of digital tools can be found in Whaples ( 1991 ). Contrary to the Social Sciences, quantitative text analysis by means of coding-books, which confusingly is sometimes called “Qualitative Text Analysis,” does not seem to have been particularly common in economic history.

The most popular model, Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), was introduced by Blei et al. ( 2003 ). Readers who are interested in the details of topic modelling are recommended to the introductions by Blei ( 2012 ) and Wehrheim ( 2019a ).

The difference between pre-defined categorization scheme and categorization by means of a topic model will be further addressed in the section “ Outlook and Conclusion .”

It goes without saying that topic modelling also requires human intervention, regarding, e.g., data selection, model specification, and evaluation. The central feature of topic models is that the two crucial steps of category building and classification are performed solely by the algorithm.

Topic models can be useful also for data collection. For example, the model created for this chapter contains a topic related to Germany (topic 12). I used this topic to identify relevant articles for the chapter “Cliometrics and the Study of German History” by Tobias Jopp and Mark Spoerer in this volume.

In the following section, I provide an overview of studies that apply some sort of computational text analysis and that are of potential interest to economic historians. Some of these studies do not address an EH question in the strict sense but still might be useful to future economic historians.

See Nicholson for an account on how the digital turn has affected the use of newspapers as a historiographic source.

This particularly concerns newspapers published after World War II for which access can be quite expensive if one is interested in full texts, which are necessary for applying methods such as topic modelling.

The preprocessing procedure and the model specifications are documented in the Online Appendix .

Diverting from this rule, topic 22 was classified as neutral due to its high topic share and its idiosyncratic development (see Online Appendix). This is of course a static picture as topics are defined as EH/Econ only once for the whole period. As we will see below, the affiliation of a topic can change over time.

Cf. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/000282803321455250 (last access July 15, 2022). It could be revealing to measure the overlap between the classification based on the topic model and JEL-codes. Due to a lack of data, this evaluation could not be carried out yet.

As a side note, the JEL-codes of this paper do not contain a N-code. One could argue that papers published in EEH all have an N-code by default, so assigning one explicitly is unnecessary. On the other hand, there are papers published in EEH that come with an explicit N-code. Others, again, come without any JEL-code.

As topic modelling is a probabilistic process, one should be eminently cautious in using the data produced by a topic model as input for further quantitative analysis. Repeatedly running the same model with the same parameters yields different results. Also, the results are highly dependable on the parameters, that is, the number of topics, the number of iterations, the hyperparameters alpha and beta, the seed-value, and finally, the preprocessing.

That is, the sum of the top five topics per year. Note that these actual five topics vary between years.

These thoughts result from my own experience in an interdisciplinary DH project ( https://media-sentiment.uni-leipzig.de ) as well as on conversations with colleagues with similar experiences.

See Ash and Hansen ( 2023 ) for a discussion of the use of textual data as input for econometric models.

Grimmer et al. ( 2022 ), see text analysis as an augmentation for human readers.

Abramitzky R (2015) Economics and the modern economic historian. J Econ Hist 75:1240–1251

Article   Google Scholar  

Abramitzky R, Boustan L, Eriksson K et al (2021) Automated linking of historical data. J Econ Lit 59:865–918

Ambrosino A, Cedrini M, Davis JB et al (2018) What topic modeling could reveal about the evolution of economics. J Econ Methodol 25:329–348

Annaert J, Mensah L (2014) Cross-sectional predictability of stock returns, evidence from the 19th century Brussels Stock Exchange (1873–1914). Explor Econ Hist 52:22–43

Ash E, Hansen S (2023) Text algorithms in economics. Annu Rev Econ 15

Google Scholar  

Ballandonne M, Cersosimo I (2023) Toward a “text as data” approach in the history and methodology of economics: an application to Adam Smith’s classics. J Hist Econ Thought 45

Bellstam G, Bhagat S, Cookson JA (2021) A text-based analysis of corporate innovation. Manag Sci 67:4004–4031

Blaydes L, Grimmer J, McQueen A (2018) Mirrors for princes and sultans: advice on the art of governance in the medieval Christian and Islamic worlds. J Polit 80:1150–1167

Blei DM (2012) Probabilistic topic models. Commun ACM 55:77–84

Blei D, Ng AY, Jordan MI (2003) Latent Dirichlet allocation. J Mach Learn Res 3:993–1022

Blomqvist C, Enflo K, Jakobsson A, Åström K (2023) Reading the Ransom: methodological advancements in extracting the Swedish Wealth Tax of 1571. Explor Econ Hist 87

Cherrier B (2017) Classifying economics: a history of the JEL codes. J Econ Lit 55:545–579

Cioni M, Federico G, Vasta M (2020) The long-term evolution of economic history: evidence from the top five field journals (1927–2017). Cliometrica 14:1–39

Cioni M, Federico G, Vasta M (2022) Is economic history changing its nature? Evidence from top journals. Cliometrica 17:23–48. (Online First)

Combes P-P, Gobillon L, Zylberberg Y (2022) Urban economics in a historical perspective: recovering data with machine learning. Reg Sci Urban Econ 94:103711

Daniel V, ter Steege L (2020) Inflation expectations and the recovery from the Great Depression in Germany. Explor Econ Hist 75:101305

Daniel V, Neubert M, Orban A (2018) Fictional expectations and the global media in the Greek debt crisis: a topic modeling approach. Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte 59:525–566

Diaf S, Döpke J, Fritsche U, Rockenbach I (2022) Sharks and minnows in a shoal of words: measuring latent ideological positions based on text mining techniques. Eur J Polit Econ 75:102179

Diebolt C (2016) Cliometrica after 10 years: definition and principles of cliometric research. Cliometrica 10:1–4

Diebolt C, Haupert M (2019) We are Ninjas: how economic history has infiltrated economics. Sartoniana 32:197–221

Diebolt C, Haupert M (2022) Cliometrics and the future of economic history. Essays Econ Bus Hist 40:1–20

Ellingsen J, Larsen VH, Thorsrud LA (2022) News media versus FRED-MD for macroeconomic forecasting. J Appl Econ 37:63–81

Esteves R, Geisler Mesevage G (2019) Social networks in economic history: opportunities and challenges. Explor Econ Hist 74:101299

Ferguson-Cradler G (2021) Narrative and computational text analysis in business and economic history. Scand Econ Hist Rev 71:1–25

Fernández-de-Pinedo N, La Parra-Perez A, Muñoz F-F (2022) Recent trends in publications of economic historians in Europe and North America (1980–2019): an empirical analysis. Cliometrica 17:1–22

Fickers A, van der Heijden T (2020) Inside the trading zone: thinkering in a digital history lab. Digit Hum Q 14

Fligstein N, Brundage JS, Schultz M (2017) Seeing like the fed: culture, cognition, and framing in the failure to anticipate the financial crisis of 2008. Am Sociol Rev 82:879–909

Frydman R, Mangee N, Stillwagon J (2021) How market sentiment drives forecasts of stock returns. J Behav Financ 22:351–367

Gentzkow M, Kelly B, Taddy M (2019) Text as data. J Econ Lit 57:535–574

Grajzl P, Murrell P (2021) Characterizing a legal–intellectual culture: Bacon, Coke, and seventeenth-century England. Cliometrica 15:43–88

Griffiths TL, Steyvers M (2004) Finding scientific topics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:5228–5235

Grimmer J, Stewart BM (2013) Text as data: the promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Polit Anal 21:267–297

Grimmer J, Roberts ME, Stewart BM (2022) Text as data: a new framework for machine learning and the social sciences. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Guldi J (2019) Parliament’s debates about infrastructure: an exercise in using dynamic topic models to synthesize historical change. Technol Cult 60:1–33

Håkansson PG, Karlsson T, La Mela M (2022) Running out of time: using job ads to analyse the demand for messengers in the twentieth century. Scand Econ Hist Rev:1–20. (Online First)

Hanna AJ, Turner JD, Walker CB (2020) News media and investor sentiment during bull and bear markets. Eur J Financ 26:1377–1395

Hansen S, McMahon M, Prat A (2018) Transparency and deliberation within the FOMC: a computational linguistics approach. Q J Econ 133:801–870

Harris C, Myers A, Briol C, Carlen S (2022) The binding force of economics. In: D’Amico DJ, Martin AG (eds) Contemporary methods and Austrian economics. pp 69–103

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Hayo B, Henseler K, Steffen Rapp M, Zahner J (2022) Complexity of ECB communication and financial market trading. J Int Money Financ 128:102709

Heyer G (2009) Introduction to TMS 2009. In: Heyer G (ed) Text mining services. Leipzig, pp 1–14

Jacobi C, van Atteveldt W, Welbers K (2015) Quantitative analysis of large amounts of journalistic texts using topic modelling. Digit Journal 4:89–106

Jaremski M (2020) Today’s economic history and tomorrow’s scholars. Cliometrica 14:169–180

Kabiri A, James H, Landon-Lane J, Nyman R (2022) The role of sentiment in the economy of the 1920s. Econ Hist Rev 76:3–30. (Online First)

Komlos J (2003) Access to food and the biological standard of living: perspectives on the nutritional status of Native Americans. Am Econ Rev 93:252–255

Kronenberg C (2021) A new measure of 19th century US suicides. Soc Indic Res 157:803–815

Küsters A (2022) Applying lessons from the past? Exploring historical analogies in ECB speeches through text mining, 1997–2019. Int J Cent Bank 18:277–329

La Mela M (2020) Tracing the emergence of Nordic allemansrätten through digitised parliamentary sources. In: Fridlund M, Oiva M, Paju P (eds) Digital histories: emergent approaches within the new digital history. Helsinki University Press, Helsinki, pp 181–197

La Parra-Perez A, Muñoz F-F, Fernandez-de-Pinedo N (2022) EconHist: a relational database for analyzing the evolution of economic history (1980–2019). Hist Methods J Quant Interdiscip Hist 55:45–60

Lack P (2021) Using word analysis to track the evolution of emotional well-being in nineteenth-century industrializing Britain. Hist Methods J Quant Interdiscip Hist 54:228–247

Lässig S (2021) Digital history: challenges and opportunities for the profession. Gesch Ges 47:5–34

Lehenmeier C, Burghardt M, Mischka B (2020) Layout detection and table recognition – recent challenges in digitizing historical documents and handwritten tabular data. In: Hall M, Merčun T, Risse T, Duchateau F (eds) Digital libraries for open knowledge. Springer Cham, Cham, pp 229–242

Lennard J (2020) Uncertainty and the great slump. Econ Hist Rev 73:844–867

Liebl B, Burghardt M (2020) From historical newspapers to machine-readable data: the origami OCR pipeline. In: Proceedings of the 1st workshop on computational humanities research (CHR)

Lüdering J, Winker P (2016) Forward or backward looking? The economic discourse and the observed reality. J Econ Stat 236:483–515

Marjanen J (2021) National sentiment: nation building and emotional language in nineteenth-century Finland. In: Kivimäki V, Suodenjoki S, Vahtikari T (eds) Lived nation as the history of experiences and emotions in Finland, 1800–2000. Palgrave Macmillan Cham, Cham, pp 61–83

Merchant Klancher E, Alexander CS (2022) U.S. demography in transition. Hist Methods J Quant Interdiscip Hist 55:1–21

Miller IM (2013) Rebellion, crime and violence in Qing China, 1722–1911: a topic modeling approach. Poetics 41:626–649

Mitchener KJ (2015) The 4D future of economic history: digitally-driven data design. J Econ Hist 75:1234–1239

Moretti F (2013) Distant reading. Verso Books, London/New York

Pablo-Martí F, Alañón-Pardo Á, Sánchez A (2021) Complex networks to understand the past: the case of roads in Bourbon Spain. Cliometrica 15:477–534

Price J, Buckles K, Van Leeuwen J, Riley I (2021) Combining family history and machine learning to link historical records: the Census Tree data set. Explor Econ Hist 80:101391

Ros R, van Erp M, Rijpma H, Zijdeman R (2020) Mining wages in nineteenth-century job advertisements. The application of language resources and language technology to study economic and social inequality. Proceedings of LR4SSHOC: workshop about language resources for the SSH Cloud, pp 27–32

Rosenzweig R (2003) Scarcity or abundance? preserving the past in a digital era. Am Hist Rev 108:735–762

Salmi H (2021) What is digital history? Wiley & Sons, Medford

Seefeldt D, Thomas WG (2009) What is digital history? Perspect Hist 47

Shen Z, Zhang K, Dell M (2020) A large dataset of historical japanese documents with complex layouts. IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, pp 548–559

Shiller RJ (2017) Narrative economics. Am Econ Rev 107:967–1004

Steyvers M, Griffiths T (2007) Probabilistic topic models. In: Landauer TK, McNamara DS, Dennis S, Kintsch W (eds) Handbook of latent semantic analysis. Psychology Press, Hoboken, pp 427–448

Thorsrud LA (2020) Words are the new numbers: a newsy coincident index of business cycles. J Bus Econ Stat 38:393–409

Turner JD, Ye Q, Walker CB (2017) Media coverage and stock returns on the London Stock Exchange, 1825–70. Rev Financ 22:1605–1629

Verdickt G (2020) The effect of war risk on managerial and investor behavior: evidence from the Brussels Stock Exchange in the pre-1914 era. J Econ Hist 80:629–669

Viola L, Verheul J (2020) Mining ethnicity: discourse-driven topic modelling of immigrant discourses in the USA, 1898–1920. Digit Scholarsh Humanit 35:921–943

Wehrheim L (2019a) Economic history goes digital: topic modeling the journal of economic history. Cliometrica 13:83–125

Wehrheim L (2019b) Von Wirtschaftsweisen und Topic Models: 50 Jahre ökonomische Expertise aus einer Text Mining Perspektive. In: Sahle P (ed) DHd 2019 Digital Humanities: multimedial & multimodal. Konferenzabstracts. Frankfurt, pp 240–245

Wehrheim L (2021) Im Olymp der Ökonomen. Zur öffentlichen Resonanz wirtschaftspolitischer Experten von 1965 bis 2015. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Wehrheim L (2022) The sound of silence. On the (in-)visibility of economic experts in German Print Media since the 1960s. Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 109:29–71

Wehrheim L, Jopp TA, Spoerer M (2023) Turn, turn, turn. A digital history of German HIstoriography, 1950–2019. J Interdiscip Hist 53:471–507

Wevers M, Smits T (2019) The visual digital turn: using neural networks to study historical images. Digit Scholarsh Humanit 35:194–207

Whaples R (1991) A quantitative history of the journal of economic history and the Cliometric revolution. J Econ Hist 51:289–301

Wiedemann G (2016) Text mining for qualitative data analysis in the social sciences: a study on democratic discourse in Germany. Springer VS, Wiesbaden

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

History Department, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany

Lino Wehrheim

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lino Wehrheim .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

BETA/CNRS, University of Strasbourg, Institute for Advanced Study, Strasbourg, France

Claude Diebolt

University of Wisconsin – La Crosse, La Crosse, WI, USA

Michael Haupert

Electronic Supplementary Material(s)

Wehrheim_appendix (docx 1453 kb), rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Wehrheim, L. (2024). Digital Methods in Economic History: The Case of Computational Text Analysis. In: Diebolt, C., Haupert, M. (eds) Handbook of Cliometrics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35583-7_118

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35583-7_118

Published : 23 May 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-35582-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-35583-7

eBook Packages : Economics and Finance Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Writing a Case Study

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

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

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

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

How to Approach Writing a Case Study Research Paper

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

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

I.  Introduction

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

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

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

II.  Literature Review

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

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

III.  Method

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV.  Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V.  Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Problems to Avoid

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

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

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

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

Writing Tip

At Least Five Misconceptions about Case Study Research

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

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

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

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

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

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.

• Library Trends

Research on the Quality Control Method of Cultural Heritage Digital Information Service: A Case Study of the Digital Cultural Relics Library Platform of the Palace Museum in Beijing

• Liyu Fang , Jing Sun , Yuxian Liu
• Johns Hopkins University Press
• Volume 71, Number 4, May 2023
• pp. 550-572
• 10.1353/lib.2023.a927953
• View Citation

Additional Information

The Palace Museum in Beijing manages a wealth of tangible and intangible cultural heritage, including the world-famous Forbidden City and many ancient collections. For the past thirty years, informatization has gradually become an important method in the Palace Museum to protect, promote, and research their precious cultural heritages. Although museum service quality and user experience and satisfaction have received growing attention, the quality control of museum digital information services remains a less explored research area. The challenges faced by the Palace Museum include how to follow changes in the technological environment, user needs, and the large scale of digital resources and how to continuously and effectively control and improve the service quality of digital information. This research, based on total quality management (TQM) and LibQUAL as well as the relevant indicators of museum quality assessment in the literature review, uses the Digital Cultural Relics Library Platform of the Palace Museum as the research case and constructs a user-centered control model to measure and improve the service quality of cultural heritage digital information, and puts the model into practice. The paper proposes theoretical advances and has implications for future improvements in the quality control of cultural heritage digital information services.

Project MUSE Mission

Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.

2715 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

+1 (410) 516-6989 [email protected]

©2024 Project MUSE. Produced by Johns Hopkins University Press in collaboration with The Sheridan Libraries.

Now and Always, The Trusted Content Your Research Requires

Built on the Johns Hopkins University Campus

Factors Associated With Chronic Arthropathy And Rheumatological Diseases After Chikungunya Infection in Colombia: A Case-Control Study

• Find this author on Google Scholar
• Find this author on PubMed
• Search for this author on this site
• ORCID record for Alejandro Ramirez
• For correspondence: [email protected]
• Info/History
• Preview PDF

Objective To identify the factors associated with the development of chronic arthropathy and rheumatological conditions in individuals who presented with clinical chikungunya infection. Methods A case-control study was carried out among individuals with a clinical diagnosis of chikungunya treated at a Colombian Health Provider Institution between 2014 and 2015. Two logistic regression models were constructed: one excluding the variables with more than 50% of the missing data, and another with all the variables but with the imputed data. Results In total 133 cases and 216 controls were obtained (349 individuals). In both models, female gender was a risk factor (OR: 2.27, CI95: 1.03 - 4.97, p = 0.04, and OR: 2.37, CI95: 1.09 - 5.17, p = 0.029, respectively), while acute involvement of the wrists was a protective factor (OR: 0.44, CI95: 0.20 - 0.95, p < 0.037; and OR: 0.29, CI95: 0.13 - 0.65, p = 0.003 respectively). Arthralgia duration was a risk factor in the imputed data model (OR: 1.03, CI95: 1.00 - 1.06, p = 0.02). Conclusion Female gender and the duration of joint symptoms in the acute phase were the main risk factors for the development of chronic chikungunya arthropathy or rheumatological pathology. Wrist involvement was a protective factor. Only rheumatoid arthritis was found to be a rheumatological disease associated with chikungunya infections. Finally, this study suggests that the interaction between usual cardiovascular factors could enhance the probability of developing chronic symptoms.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Health of the Universidad del Valle Colombia. CIREH and the Ethics Committee of the HPI from which the study subjects came (approved record 007-93 020).

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

View the discussion thread.

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Citation Manager Formats

• EndNote (tagged)
• EndNote 8 (xml)
• RefWorks Tagged
• Ref Manager
• Tweet Widget
• Facebook Like
• Google Plus One
• Addiction Medicine (324)
• Allergy and Immunology (632)
• Anesthesia (168)
• Cardiovascular Medicine (2399)
• Dentistry and Oral Medicine (289)
• Dermatology (207)
• Emergency Medicine (381)
• Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (850)
• Epidemiology (11795)
• Forensic Medicine (10)
• Gastroenterology (705)
• Genetic and Genomic Medicine (3766)
• Geriatric Medicine (350)
• Health Economics (637)
• Health Informatics (2408)
• Health Policy (939)
• Health Systems and Quality Improvement (905)
• Hematology (342)
• HIV/AIDS (786)
• Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13346)
• Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (769)
• Medical Education (368)
• Medical Ethics (105)
• Nephrology (401)
• Neurology (3523)
• Nursing (199)
• Nutrition (528)
• Obstetrics and Gynecology (679)
• Occupational and Environmental Health (667)
• Oncology (1832)
• Ophthalmology (538)
• Orthopedics (221)
• Otolaryngology (287)
• Pain Medicine (234)
• Palliative Medicine (66)
• Pathology (447)
• Pediatrics (1037)
• Pharmacology and Therapeutics (426)
• Primary Care Research (424)
• Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3187)
• Public and Global Health (6178)
• Radiology and Imaging (1290)
• Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (751)
• Respiratory Medicine (832)
• Rheumatology (380)
• Sexual and Reproductive Health (373)
• Sports Medicine (324)
• Surgery (403)
• Toxicology (50)
• Transplantation (172)
• Urology (147)

Log in using your username and password

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

You are here

• Online First
• Exploring the effect on primary endpoints in trials testing targeted therapy interventions for rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-epidemiological study on the appropriate use of a core outcome set
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1449-254X Philip Rask Lage-Hansen 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Nikoletta Svendsen 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2579-9325 Jamie Kirkham 4 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2857-2484 Sabrina Mai Nielsen 3 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0792-505X Kirstine Amris 3 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8428-6354 Maarten de Wit 5 ,
• Maarten Boers 6 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0426-4962 Torkell Ellingsen 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6600-0631 Robin Christensen 2 , 3
• 1 Department of Rheumatology , Esbjerg and Grindsted Hospital , Esbjerg , Denmark
• 2 Research Unit of Rheumatology, Department of Clinical Research , University of Southern Denmark, Odense University Hospital , Odense , Denmark
• 3 Section for Biostatistics and Evidence-Based Research , The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital , Copenhagen , Denmark
• 4 Centre for Biostatistics , The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre , Manchester , UK
• 5 OMERACT Patient Research Partner , Amsterdam , The Netherlands
• 6 Department of Epidemiology and Data Science , Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam , Amsterdam , The Netherlands
• Correspondence to Dr Philip Rask Lage-Hansen, Rheumatology, Esbjerg and Grindsted Hospital, Esbjerg, Syddanmark, Denmark; philip.rask.lage-hansen3{at}rsyd.dk

Objectives To explore which core domain is best associated with the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% response in trials assessing the effect of targeted interventions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods A meta-epidemiological study was performed on randomised trials investigating biologics and targeted agents compared with placebo or conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with RA. The main outcome measures were ORs for the ACR 20% response and at least one of the eight core domains according to the existing RA core outcome set (COS) analysed based on standardised mean differences.

Results 115 trials involving 55 422 patients with RA were eligible. The OR for achieving ACR 20% response was 3.19 (95% CI 2.96 to 3.44) for the experimental interventions relative to the comparators. The median number of COS domains reported was 6; 18 trials reported only 1 domain, 17 all 8. Univariable meta-regression analyses indicated that each of the eight core domains was significantly associated with ACR 20% response, yet improvements in physical disability explain a successful ACR 20% response the most. Including only trials reporting on all eight core domains, univariable meta-regression analyses proved improvement in fatigue to explain a successful ACR 20% response the most.

Conclusions Within this dataset, it is evident that the conclusions concerning our primary objective were significantly influenced by both the amount and characteristics of missing data. Our data suggest that fatigue could be more important for the primary endpoint than previously assumed, but this is based on limited data.

• Arthritis, Rheumatoid
• Biological Therapy
• Patient Reported Outcome Measures
• Outcome Assessment, Health Care

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request.

https://doi.org/10.1136/ard-2024-225523

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 ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT

Core outcome sets (COS) represent the minimum set of domains and the measurement instruments that should be reported in every trial and longitudinal study of a specific condition. The existing Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA)-COS comprises eight outcome domains.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADD

This is the first report evaluating the significance of presenting the complete core outcome set when evaluating drug efficacy for RA with a primary endpoint (i.e. usually based on the ACR20 responder criteria).

We reveal the mutual contribution of each of the individual component’s part of the ACR20 response; improvements in fatigue may be very influential contributing to the primary endpoint in the existing RA trials (i.e. ACR20 responder criteria).

An unfortunate secondary finding is the fact that the current published evidence is influenced by a substantial absence of data presentation on those supposedly mandatory outcomes. Despite recommendations, our work finds that most trials fail to report on all eight core domains.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

This study serves as compelling evidence urging reviewers and journal editors to make a better effort encouraging trialists to report all components related to a core Outcome including fatigue.

Introduction

Core outcome set (COS) represents the minimum set of domains and the measurement instruments that should be reported in every trial and longitudinal study of a specific condition. An appropriate definition of COS can enhance the relevance of research by ensuring that a standardised set of outcomes is measured and reported in all trials for a specific clinical area. 1 Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was one of the first diseases for which a COS was defined. 2 3 Nevertheless, RA trials usually report one of two composite outcome measures (the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% and Disease Activity Score (DAS) 28) but fail to report individual core domains separately. 4–6

The prime focus of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) consensus initiative is to develop COS and to improve outcome measurement in musculoskeletal disorders. 7 In 1990, preparations started for a conference to come to a consensus on a COS for RA clinical trials: (OMERACT initially was the acronym for ‘Outcome Measures in RA clinical trials’). A year later, the ACR established a committee aiming at developing a COS in clinical trials for RA and a decision was made to pool efforts. It was agreed to present a draft COS at OMERACT in Maastricht, The Netherlands in 1992 for consensus, with the plan to then focus on sensitivity to change and minimum clinical improvement. Surprisingly, the draft COS was deemed unacceptable by the majority of the participants. Due to the work at OMERACT, a compromise amendment was forged that formed the basis for the final core set. This OMERACT compromise was initially accepted and published by the ACR 3 and later endorsed by the WHO and published as WHO-International League of Association for Rheumatology core set. 2 This core set comprises seven outcome domains: tender joint count (TJC), swollen joint count (SJC), Pain, Physician Global Assessment, Physical Disability, Patient Global Assessment and Acute Phase Reactants. 3

In 2007, OMERACT recommended the inclusion of fatigue in the RA-COS. 8 Several validated composite outcome measures (indices) are available in clinical trials to measure disease activity. Of the two primary indices employed in RA, the ACR 20% includes all the domains of the original RA-COS and the DAS 28 includes four domains of the COS. 4 It is recommended in regulatory guidance to report either of these, along with the RA-COS. 9 10

Composite outcome measurements are frequently employed to enhance statistical power for binary outcomes and minimise the risk of type-1 errors arising from multiple individual statistical tests across core domains. However, these composite endpoints may obscure the actual effects of treatment on the individual domains if not reported. 11 Understanding which domains contribute most to the ACR 20% response is of interest because it sheds light on the underlying mechanisms and predictors of treatment response in RA. This knowledge not only advances our academic understanding of the disease but could potentially have important implications for improving clinical trial design, enhancing treatment decision-making and ultimately improving patient outcomes.

Therefore, this study aimed to assess the overall impact of interventions for RA according to each of the eight core domains in the established RA-COS (including fatigue) and its association with the composite ACR 20% response in individual trials.

Identification of eligible trials

Study selection, assessment of eligibility criteria, data extraction and statistical analyses were performed based on a prespecified protocol ( online supplemental file A ). The study protocol is publicly available at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (registration number CRD42022343729).

Supplemental material

A systematic literature search was conducted through the databases of MEDLINE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; via the Cochrane Library) and scanning for trials included in published Cochrane Reviews between 10 September 2022 and 15 September 2022. Two search strategies were applied, with keywords and text words related to biologics and targeted agents approved for RA. Search 1—a direct search for trials in MEDLINE and search 2—an indirect search for trials via Cochrane Reviews are available in online supplemental file B . We directed our literature exploration towards biologics and targeted agents to identify the most significant differences possible. 12 Two reviewers (PRL-H and NS) independently screened titles and abstracts and subsequently assessed the full texts of all identified studies for eligibility. In the cases of disagreements between the reviewers, a third reviewer (RC) was involved in the discussion until consensus was achieved.

We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) (and any secondary papers related to the original RCT reporting on patient-reported outcomes) investigating interventions with biologics and targeted synthetic agents (Janus kinase inhibitors) in RA approved by the European Medicines Agency or Food and Drug Administration. RCTs evaluating drug efficacy were considered eligible; however, unlike what was prespecified in the protocol, for feasibility, RCTs using biological or targeted synthetic agents as a control comparator were excluded, along with RCTs not reporting ACR 20% response. Only double-blinded RCTs published as full texts in English were considered eligible; open-label studies were excluded from our analyses because performance and detection bias are inherent when the outcome can be categorised as a subjective endpoint (eg, patient-reported outcomes). 13 Studies with an adaptive, tapering or withdrawal trial design were excluded to improve uniformity between studies. In addition, as this study aimed to assess the impact of each of the eight core domains on the ACR 20% response in the individual trials, studies that failed to report any core outcome domains were excluded.

Data retrieval, extraction and evaluation

At the trial level, the terms of extraction comprised information about the year of publication, intervention(s), total number of patients randomised, proportion of women, mean age, changes in the OMERACT RA-COS domains from baseline (ie, TJC, SJC, pain, physician global assessment, physical disability, patient global assessment, acute phase reactants and fatigue), as well as ACR 20% response. All the domains stated above were collected at the same time point as the trial’s primary endpoint. Trials with multiple intervention arms were treated as individual trials, referred to as ‘randomised comparisons’ (ie, four-arm trials, with three experimental interventions (and one comparator), were used to generate three randomised comparisons with the control). However, to avoid double-counting patients, the number of patients in the placebo comparator groups was divided by the number of active treatment arms, thereby effectively adjusting the SEs.

Statistical analysis

Treatment effect sizes for all individual core domains were expressed as between-group standardised mean differences (SMDs) of the treatment effect, coded as an SMD less than 0, indicating a beneficial effect of the experimental intervention (eg, a reduction in the patient’s global assessment) compared with the control comparator. Standard pairwise meta-analyses for the between-group difference in ACR 20% response (based on ORs) and the eight domains’ SMDs with the corresponding 95% CIs were performed with Review Manager (V.5.3). The choice of OR rather than risk ratios was made at the protocol stage because of the symmetry related to this dichotomous outcome (ie, the presence or the absence of an event); the meta-analysis ORs can be converted by approximate methods SMDs and vice versa. 14 Standard random-effects meta-analysis was used as the default option, whereas a fixed-effect analysis was applied for sensitivity analysis. Inconsistency was evaluated by visual inspection of the forest plots and by calculating the I 2 inconsistency index, which describes the percentage of total variation across trials attributable to heterogeneity rather than to chance. 15

To investigate which of the eight core domains are best associated with the ACR 20% endpoint in the individual trials (ie, which domains are most responsible (the highest odds) for the statistical outcome of an RA trial per se), repeated (univariable) meta-regression analyses were performed. 16 17 For the meta-regression analysis models, unadjusted (univariable) mixed-effects analyses were used to assess whether variation in the (log) OR expressing the ACR 20% response could be moderated by the core domains. For exploratory analyses, more moderators (study-level variables) were included in the model, which might account for part of the heterogeneity in the true effects and possible meta-confounding. 18 The analyses were performed with R V.4.1.3 (R Project for Statistical Computing) and Stata Statistical Software (V.17.0).

Patient and public involvement

This project followed the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for the inclusion of patient research partners. 19 An experienced patient research partner (MdW) was involved as a scientific collaborator and elaborated on the protocol throughout the research process and commented on the results.

Search results and characteristics of studies

As illustrated in figure 1 , combining the two search strategies identified 542 records based on title and abstract. Removal of duplicates between the two search strategies left 425 records that were sought for retrieval. One record was not retrievable, leaving 424 records for evaluation. After the evaluation, 115 unique trials described in 140 reports were included in the meta-analyses (see online supplemental file C for the reference list of included trials). Reasons for excluding studies are given in figure 1 . Five studies were excluded because they did not report on ACR 20% response. Of these, one study reported only ACR 50 response, 20 two studies reported on the Paulus 20% criteria 21 22 and two other studies reported only on remission rate. 23 24 10 studies did not report any of the core domains at follow-up, and in 7 studies, SDs were not estimable. The average age of study participants across trials was approximately 53, and the average proportion of women was 80%.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Flow chart of included studies. ACR, American College of Rheumatology; COS, core outcome set; EMA, European Medicines Agency; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; RA, rheumatoid arthritis; RCT, randomised clinical trial.

Availability of the core outcome domains

The 115 trials included 55 422 unique patients and allowed up to 245 randomised comparisons. However, as depicted in table 1 , only 17 (15%) studies reported on all 8 core domains, whereas 18 (16%) only reported 1 of the 8 core outcome measurements. The median number of COS reported across trials was 6.

• View inline

The number of COS domains reported in trials, by trial number, randomised comparisons and participants

The frequency by which the individual core domains were reported is available in table 2 . In general, studies provided thorough coverage of information related to physical disability, with 96% of them addressing this topic. TJC, SJC and pain were reported in 70% of studies. Likewise, patient global assessment and acute phase reactants were reported in 70% and 69% of studies, respectively. physician global assessment was reported in 59% of studies, and only 30% of studies reported fatigue. However, only 15% of studies included reports on both physician global assessment and fatigue together while 69% of trials reported on both TJC and SJC concurrently. The pairwise reporting of all other outcome domains fell within this range.

Percentage of all trials (n=115) reporting individual domains and pairs of domains

The instruments used to measure the domains varied only sparsely across trials. Thus, pain was assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) ranging from 0.0 to 1.0 in 1 (1%) trial, 0 to 10 in 7 (9%) trials and 0 to 100 in 72 (90%) trials. Physician and patient global assessments were assessed by a VAS ranging from 0.0 to 1.0 and 0–10 in 3 and 11 trials, respectively. For the remaining studies, the scale ranged from 0 to 100. For physical disability, the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) was the overall preferred instrument. Thus, 108 (98%) studies reported on HAQ-DI while 2 (2%) trials reported on SF-36 (Short Form 36). Acute phase reactants were predominantly reported by C reactive protein (CRP); however, several studies reported on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and CRP simultaneously. A subset of studies (n=3 (4%)) reported only on the ESR. Finally, fatigue was mainly measured by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue questionnaire (n=28 (82%)). In contrast, VAS was used in 3 (9%), the Fatigue Assessment Scale in 2 (6%) and the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Scale in 1 (3%) trial.

Quantitative evidence synthesis

The standard pairwise meta-analyses for the eight domains, as well as ACR 20% response, showed that the OR for achieving ACR 20% response was 3.19 (95% CI 2.96 to 3.44) for the experimental interventions relative to the comparators. The effect sizes expressed as SMD on the core outcome domains ranged from the least effective (impact) on fatigue –0.36 (95% CI –0.39 to –0.33) to the most substantial impact on acute phase reactants –0.55 (95% CI –0.61 to –0.49) ( table 3 ) (see appendix 1 for viewing all forest plots).

The standard random-effects pairwise meta-analyses

Core outcome domains and their association with the ACR 20 response

Table 4 shows the univariate associations (based on restricted maximum likelihood) meta-regression estimates for trial outcome (OR for ACR 20% endpoint in active treatment group compared with control group; the higher the more successful trial outcome) and each of the eight core domains individually. The graphical visualisation is given in appendix 2 .

For each core domain the slope of the meta-regression OR predicting the net benefit in terms of ACR 20%

Each of all core domains was associated with the ACR 20% response. However, the core domains can arbitrarily be categorised into two based on the OR. Thus, physical disability, TJC, SJC, physician global assessment, fatigue and pain were more associated with the ACR 20 response compared with patient global assessments and acute phase reactants as illustrated in figure 2 .

Based on OR, the core domains can be categorised into two according to their association to the ACR 20% response. ACR, American College of Rheumatology; APR, acute phase reactant; PhGA, physician global assessment; PtGA, patient global assessment; SJC, swollen joint count; TJC, tender joint count.

However, meta-regression analyses based only on studies reporting on all COS showed that the associations changed notably. Thus, impact on fatigue becomes equally associated with the successful trial endpoint (ie, ACR 20% response) compared with TJC and SJC. No outliers in the 30 randomised comparisons sample driving the fatigue finding were observed.

This meta-epidemiological study assessed the impact of interventions (relative to placebo) for RA according to each of the eight core domains in the existing RA-COS and its association with the primary trial outcome (composite ACR 20% response) in trials evaluating biologics and small molecules for RA. Like previous meta-analyses, our results showed the anticipated benefit of using biologics and small molecules for RA compared with comparators. 25 26 This was applicable for both the ACR 20% response and each of the eight core domains.

Unfortunately, only a subset of studies reported on all eight core domains, which is in accordance with earlier findings. 4 Despite what is recommended as part of having a COS, only a few studies listed all core outcomes individually (15 %). This finding is further emphasised when taking the literature search results into account. 10 studies did not report on any core domains at follow-up 27–36 and further 7 studies 37–43 failed to report on the variance of their results, thereby leaving the results inaccessible for further analyses. Evidently, there is a significant reporting problem. Although the RA-COS has been recommended for nearly 30 years, only a subset of studies succeed in reporting the individual domains. As a minimum authors could present the RA-COS as a supplementary.

As fatigue was recommended later to the RA-COS (2007), this outcome was expected to be reported the least, which was also the case. However, 91 of the 115 included studies were published after 2007, and still only 31 of those reported fatigue. Among the studies that addressed fatigue, we observed a lack of distinct emphasis or rationale for its inclusion; rather, it was merely mentioned alongside other core outcomes. The reason for the lack of reporting on this domain in most studies remains speculative. The ACR has not formally endorsed fatigue as a core outcome measure in RA. Thus, fatigue could be considered as part of the proposed core set measures that still need to be assessed, analysed and reported.

Former studies have highlighted fatigue as a significant concern among patients with inflammatory arthritis. 44 45 Additionally, while increased fatigue has been linked to factors specific to RA including inflammation and pain, other elements such as obesity, lack of physical activity, sleep disturbances and depression appear to account for most of the variability in fatigue levels. 45 46 Our standard pairwise meta-analysis showed that fatigue is the least sensitive to change following the experimental intervention in comparison to placebo. Given this limited sensitivity and the influence of other factors, such as depression, which may not be improved by anti-inflammatory treatments, while included, fatigue should probably not be applied as a primary endpoint definition in registration trials for new RA treatments. Nevertheless, our meta-analysis showed that fatigue was highly associated (although based on limited data) with the composite primary endpoint (ACR 20% response). In addition, fatigue is an important target reflecting the unmet needs of patients with RA.

The univariable meta-regression analyses showed each core domain to be significantly associated with the achievement of the ACR 20% response criteria. Nonetheless, acute phase reactants and patients’ global assessment were less associated with the likelihood of achieving ACR 20% response than all other core domains. Interestingly, according to the standard pairwise meta-analysis, acute phase reactants were the domain with the largest effect size. However, with patients’ global assessment, it was also the one with the highest inconsistency across trials (I 2 =82% for both domains). Visual inspection of the meta-regression plots indicated further that the association between acute phase reactants and ACR 20% response differed significantly between studies compared with all other core domains.

Even though patients’ global assessments showed a weaker association with the ACR 20% response compared with all other domains (except acute phase reactants), it is notable that the association was still statistically significant (p<0.001). Visual inspection of the univariate meta-regression plots gives the impression that two specific randomised comparisons primarily were responsible for the reduced slope and, thereby, the decreased association with the ACR 20% response. Compared with the remaining comparisons, these specific comparisons had relatively high effect sizes (−3.80 and −3.99, respectively). The two comparisons originate from the same study where no SD was available. The SD was calculated based on a p value that was reported as less than 0.001. Since the effect sizes could be considered outliers, it could be speculated that the calculation in these specific cases was too uncertain.

Since all eight core domains separately were significantly associated with the composite ACR 20% response criteria set, it could be speculated that the individual reporting on all eight core domains is redundant in the evaluation of drugs for the treatment of RA. All the domains (except fatigue) are included in the ACR 20% response criteria set, and to be an ‘ACR responder’ the subject must improve in at least five domains, where both TJC and SJC are mandatory. However, according to the standard pairwise meta-analyses for the eight domains, the effect sizes differed considerably between domains, and the regression analyses further showed differences among the domains in OR for predicting ACR 20% response. Additionally, our regression analyses restricted to comparisons that fully report on core domains showed substantially different ORs for the individual domains ability for predicting the ACR 20% response. This raises the question of whether our meta-analyses provide biased or true effect estimates. Thus, to fully capture the effect of a potential treatment for RA, and in addition to the preference of patients to have a full report of how they are doing on each separate core domain, it is recommendable to report on all eight domains. As only a minority of studies provide information on all domains, reviewers and journal editors should strive to encourage trialists to enhance transparency regarding treatment effects by reporting the impact on each domain.

This study had limitations. First, we refrained from contacting trialists to verify if the core domains were measured in cases where they were not reported. With our analyses encompassing over 100 studies and considering that many of these studies were published more than a decade ago, we determined that the endeavour to retrieve any unpublished results would be both excessive and unsystematic. We anticipated that only a subset of trialists would be inclined to access the data due to the considerable time elapsed since publication. Additionally, considering that fatigue is not included in the original ACR criteria and is not mentioned in most of the primary or secondary reports, we would not expect fatigue to have been measured. Second, only about one-third of all studies reported SD values for the reported core domains’ mean change or follow-up values. The remaining studies reported various statistics allowing the calculation of SD values (95% CI, SE, p values, etc). However, the assumptions needed to estimate SD from p values when these are reported as less or more than a specific value make such estimates uncertain.

In this meta-epidemiological study of RA trials, the contribution of individual components to the primary endpoint (effect on ACR 20% response) was strongly influenced by both the amount and characteristics of incomplete reporting on those components, precluding strong conclusions. Our data suggest that net benefit judged by fatigue could be an important contributor to the primary endpoint in RA trials (ACR 20% response), but this is based on limited data. Despite recommendations, most trials do not report on all eight core domains, and our findings indicate that this reporting gap impacts the overall results of the regression analyses.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

• Prinsen CAC ,
• Rose MR , et al
• Tugwell P ,
• Felson DT , et al
• Felson DT ,
• Anderson JJ ,
• Boers M , et al
• Kirkham J ,
• Christensen R ,
• Anderson J ,
• Yazdany J , et al
• Kirwan JR ,
• Wells G , et al
• Minnock P ,
• Adebajo A , et al
• Products TEAftEoM
• ↵ US department of health and human sevices. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry clinical development programs for drugs, devices, and biological products for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis , Available : https://www.fda.gov/media/71145/download
• Prieto-Merino D ,
• Staa TP van , et al
• Takase-Minegishi K ,
• Ramiro S , et al
• Gluud LL , et al
• Higgins JPT ,
• Thompson SG ,
• Deeks JJ , et al
• Higgins JPT
• Berthelsen DB
• de Wit MPT ,
• Aanerud GJ , et al
• Leirisalo-Repo M ,
• Kautiainen H ,
• Laasonen L , et al
• Breedveld FC ,
• Kalden JR , et al
• Elliott MJ ,
• Feldmann M , et al
• Villeneuve E ,
• Hensor EMA , et al
• Westhovens R ,
• Ximenes AC , et al
• Donahue KE ,
• Schulman ER ,
• Gartlehner G , et al
• Hazlewood GS ,
• Barnabe C ,
• Tomlinson G , et al
• Han J , et al
• Takeuchi T ,
• Miyasaka N , et al
• Bathon JM ,
• Martin RW ,
• Fleischmann RM , et al
• Genovese MC ,
• Martin RW , et al
• Schiff MH ,
• von Kempis J ,
• Goldblum R , et al
• Yamamoto K ,
• Takeuchi T , et al
• Curtis JR ,
• Ince A , et al
• Williams JH ,
• Hutmacher MM ,
• Zierhut ML , et al
• Matsubara T ,
• Nakajima T , et al
• Moreland LW ,
• Baumgartner SW , et al
• Mathias SD ,
• Colwell HH ,
• Miller DP , et al
• Keystone EC ,
• Kremer JM , et al
• Chen DY , et al
• Isenberg DA ,
• Garrood T , et al
• Taylor PC ,
• Szechinski J , et al
• Van Den Bosch F , et al
• Rifbjerg-Madsen S ,
• Christensen AW ,
• Christensen R , et al
• Pollard LC ,
• Gonzalez J , et al

Supplementary materials

Supplementary data.

This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

• Data supplement 1
• Data supplement 2
• Data supplement 3
• Data supplement 4
• Data supplement 5

Handling editor Josef S Smolen

Contributors PRL-H, JK, SMMN, KA, MB, MdW, TE and RC were responsible for editing and approval of the protocol before submission to PROSPERO. They all contributed to the methodological and statistical design of the study. PRL-H and NS performed the systematic literature search. In the cases of disagreements between the reviewers, a third reviewer (RC) was involved in discussion until consensus was achieved. PRL-H, SMMN and RC were all involved in the statistical analyses. All authors (PRL-H, NS, JK, SMMN, KA, MdW, MB, TE and RC) are responsible for editing and approval of the paper before submission. PRL-H and RC are the guarantors of this work.

Funding This work was supported by the clinical institute of Southern Danish University (SDU), Odense University hospital, Esbjerg Hospital and indirectly by unrestricted grants from the Oak Foundation (the Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital is supported by a core grant from the Oak Foundation (OCAY-18-774-OFIL)).

Disclaimer The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the results for publication. This study is independent of its funders/sponsors.

Competing interests None declared.

Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Read the full text or download the PDF: