what is difference between narrative and case study

Difference Between Case Study And Narrative Research

• Success Team
• January 19, 2023

Working with language data? Save 80%+ of your time and costs.

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

Get a 7-day fully-featured trial!

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

What is Case Study Research?

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

What is Narrative Research?

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

Differences Between Case Study and Narrative Research

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

Which is Better?

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

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

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

Step 1: Create Your Speak Account

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

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

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

Step 2: Upload Your Research Data

We typically recommend MP4s for video or MP3s for audio.

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

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

Accepted Audio File Types

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

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

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

Publicly Available URLs

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

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

YouTube URLs

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

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

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

Speak Integrations

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

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

Step 3: Calculate and Pay the Total Automatically

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

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

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

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

Step 4: Wait for Speak to Analyze Your Research Data

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

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

Step 5: Visit Your File Or Folder

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

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

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

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

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

What are magic prompts.

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

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

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

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

Step 7: Select Your Assistant Type

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

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

To begin, we have included:

Choose the most relevant assistant type from the dropdown.

Step 8: Create Or Select Your Desired Prompt

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

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

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

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

Step 9: Review & Share Responses

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

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

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

Speak Magic Prompts As ChatGPT For Research Data Pricing

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

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

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

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

Both options are available on the subscription page .

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

Completely Personalize Your Plan 📝

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

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

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

Claim Your Special Offer 🎁

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

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

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

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

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

What are you waiting for?

Refer Others & Earn Real Money 💸

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

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

Use this link to become an official Speak affiliate.

Check Out Our Dedicated Resources📚

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

Book A Free Implementation Session 🤝

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

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

Save 99% of your time and costs!

Use Speak's powerful AI to transcribe, analyze, automate and produce incredible insights for you and your team.

Using narrative analysis in qualitative research

Last updated

7 March 2023

Reviewed by

Jean Kaluza

After spending considerable time and effort interviewing persons for research, you want to ensure you get the most out of the data you gathered. One method that gives you an excellent opportunity to connect with your data on a very human and personal level is a narrative analysis in qualitative research. 

Master narrative analysis

Analyze your qualitative data faster and surface more actionable insights

• What is narrative analysis?

Narrative analysis is a type of qualitative data analysis that focuses on interpreting the core narratives from a study group's personal stories. Using first-person narrative, data is acquired and organized to allow the researcher to understand how the individuals experienced something. 

Instead of focusing on just the actual words used during an interview, the narrative analysis also allows for a compilation of data on how the person expressed themselves, what language they used when describing a particular event or feeling, and the thoughts and motivations they experienced. A narrative analysis will also consider how the research participants constructed their narratives.

From the interview to coding , you should strive to keep the entire individual narrative together, so that the information shared during the interview remains intact.

Is narrative analysis qualitative or quantitative?

Narrative analysis is a qualitative research method.

Is narrative analysis a method or methodology?

A method describes the tools or processes used to understand your data; methodology describes the overall framework used to support the methods chosen. By this definition, narrative analysis can be both a method used to understand data and a methodology appropriate for approaching data that comes primarily from first-person stories.

• Do you need to perform narrative research to conduct a narrative analysis?

A narrative analysis will give the best answers about the data if you begin with conducting narrative research. Narrative research explores an entire story with a research participant to understand their personal story.

What are the characteristics of narrative research?

Narrative research always includes data from individuals that tell the story of their experiences. This is captured using loosely structured interviews . These can be a single interview or a series of long interviews over a period of time. Narrative research focuses on the construct and expressions of the story as experienced by the research participant.

• Examples of types of narratives

Narrative data is based on narratives. Your data may include the entire life story or a complete personal narrative, giving a comprehensive account of someone's life, depending on the researched subject. Alternatively, a topical story can provide context around one specific moment in the research participant's life. 

Personal narratives can be single or multiple sessions, encompassing more than topical stories but not entire life stories of the individuals.

• What is the objective of narrative analysis?

The narrative analysis seeks to organize the overall experience of a group of research participants' stories. The goal is to turn people's individual narratives into data that can be coded and organized so that researchers can easily understand the impact of a certain event, feeling, or decision on the involved persons. At the end of a narrative analysis, researchers can identify certain core narratives that capture the human experience.

What is the difference between content analysis and narrative analysis?

Content analysis is a research method that determines how often certain words, concepts, or themes appear inside a sampling of qualitative data . The narrative analysis focuses on the overall story and organizing the constructs and features of a narrative.

What is the difference between narrative analysis and case study in qualitative research?

A case study focuses on one particular event. A narrative analysis draws from a larger amount of data surrounding the entire narrative, including the thoughts that led up to a decision and the personal conclusion of the research participant. 

A case study, therefore, is any specific topic studied in depth, whereas narrative analysis explores single or multi-faceted experiences across time. ​​

What is the difference between narrative analysis and thematic analysis?

A thematic analysis will appear as researchers review the available qualitative data and note any recurring themes. Unlike narrative analysis, which describes an entire method of evaluating data to find a conclusion, a thematic analysis only describes reviewing and categorizing the data.

• Capturing narrative data

Because narrative data relies heavily on allowing a research participant to describe their experience, it is best to allow for a less structured interview. Allowing the participant to explore tangents or analyze their personal narrative will result in more complete data. 

When collecting narrative data, always allow the participant the time and space needed to complete their narrative.

• Methods of transcribing narrative data

A narrative analysis requires that the researchers have access to the entire verbatim narrative of the participant, including not just the word they use but the pauses, the verbal tics, and verbal crutches, such as "um" and "hmm." 

As the entire way the story is expressed is part of the data, a verbatim transcription should be created before attempting to code the narrative analysis.

Video and audio transcription templates

• How to code narrative analysis

Coding narrative analysis has two natural start points, either using a deductive coding system or an inductive coding system. Regardless of your chosen method, it's crucial not to lose valuable data during the organization process.

When coding, expect to see more information in the code snippets.

• Types of narrative analysis

After coding is complete, you should expect your data to look like large blocks of text organized by the parts of the story. You will also see where individual narratives compare and diverge.

Inductive method

Using an inductive narrative method treats the entire narrative as one datum or one set of information. An inductive narrative method will encourage the research participant to organize their own story. 

To make sense of how a story begins and ends, you must rely on cues from the participant. These may take the form of entrance and exit talks. 

Participants may not always provide clear indicators of where their narratives start and end. However, you can anticipate that their stories will contain elements of a beginning, middle, and end. By analyzing these components through coding, you can identify emerging patterns in the data.

Taking cues from entrance and exit talk

Entrance talk is when the participant begins a particular set of narratives. You may hear expressions such as, "I remember when…," "It first occurred to me when…," or "Here's an example…."

Exit talk allows you to see when the story is wrapping up, and you might expect to hear a phrase like, "…and that's how we decided", "after that, we moved on," or "that's pretty much it."

Deductive method

Regardless of your chosen method, using a deductive method can help preserve the overall storyline while coding. Starting with a deductive method allows for the separation of narrative pieces without compromising the story's integrity.

Hybrid inductive and deductive narrative analysis

Using both methods together gives you a comprehensive understanding of the data. You can start by coding the entire story using the inductive method. Then, you can better analyze and interpret the data by applying deductive codes to individual parts of the story.

• How to analyze data after coding using narrative analysis

A narrative analysis aims to take all relevant interviews and organize them down to a few core narratives. After reviewing the coding, these core narratives may appear through a repeated moment of decision occurring before the climax or a key feeling that affected the participant's outcome.

You may see these core narratives diverge early on, or you may learn that a particular moment after introspection reveals the core narrative for each participant. Either way, researchers can now quickly express and understand the data you acquired.

• A step-by-step approach to narrative analysis and finding core narratives

Narrative analysis may look slightly different to each research group, but we will walk through the process using the Delve method for this article.

Step 1 – Code narrative blocks

Organize your narrative blocks using inductive coding to organize stories by a life event.

Example: Narrative interviews are conducted with homeowners asking them to describe how they bought their first home.

Step 2 – Group and read by live-event

You begin your data analysis by reading through each of the narratives coded with the same life event.

Example: You read through each homeowner's experience of buying their first home and notice that some common themes begin to appear, such as "we were tired of renting," "our family expanded to the point that we needed a larger space," and "we had finally saved enough for a downpayment."

Step 3 – Create a nested story structure

As these common narratives develop throughout the participant's interviews, create and nest code according to your narrative analysis framework. Use your coding to break down the narrative into pieces that can be analyzed together.

Example: During your interviews, you find that the beginning of the narrative usually includes the pressures faced before buying a home that pushes the research participants to consider homeownership. The middle of the narrative often includes challenges that come up during the decision-making process. The end of the narrative usually includes perspectives about the excitement, stress, or consequences of home ownership that has finally taken place. 

Step 4 – Delve into the story structure

Once the narratives are organized into their pieces, you begin to notice how participants structure their own stories and where similarities and differences emerge.

Example: You find in your research that many people who choose to buy homes had the desire to buy a home before their circumstances allowed them to. You notice that almost all the stories begin with the feeling of some sort of outside pressure.

Step 5 – Compare across story structure

While breaking down narratives into smaller pieces is necessary for analysis, it's important not to lose sight of the overall story. To keep the big picture in mind, take breaks to step back and reread the entire narrative of a code block. This will help you remember how participants expressed themselves and ensure that the core narrative remains the focus of the analysis.

Example: By carefully examining the similarities across the beginnings of participants' narratives, you find the similarities in pressures. Considering the overall narrative, you notice how these pressures lead to similar decisions despite the challenges faced. 

Divergence in feelings towards homeownership can be linked to positive or negative pressures. Individuals who received positive pressure, such as family support or excitement, may view homeownership more favorably. Meanwhile, negative pressures like high rent or peer pressure may cause individuals to have a more negative attitude toward homeownership.

These factors can contribute to the initial divergence in feelings towards homeownership.

Step 6 – Tell the core narrative

After carefully analyzing the data, you have found how the narratives relate and diverge. You may be able to create a theory about why the narratives diverge and can create one or two core narratives that explain the way the story was experienced.

Example: You can now construct a core narrative on how a person's initial feelings toward buying a house affect their feelings after purchasing and living in their first home.

Narrative analysis in qualitative research is an invaluable tool to understand how people's stories and ability to self-narrate reflect the human experience. Qualitative data analysis can be improved through coding and organizing complete narratives. By doing so, researchers can conclude how humans process and move through decisions and life events.

Learn more about qualitative transcription software

Editor’s picks.

Last updated: 11 January 2024

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 12 May 2023

Last updated: 15 February 2024

Last updated: 30 April 2024

Last updated: 18 May 2023

Last updated: 10 April 2023

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next.

Users report unexpectedly high data usage, especially during streaming sessions.

Users find it hard to navigate from the home page to relevant playlists in the app.

It would be great to have a sleep timer feature, especially for bedtime listening.

I need better filters to find the songs or artists I’m looking for.

Log in or sign up

Get started for free

Narrative Inquiry, Phenomenology, and Grounded Theory in Qualitative Research

• First Online: 27 October 2022

Cite this chapter

• Rabiul Islam 4 &
• Md. Sayeed Akhter 5  

2701 Accesses

Narrative inquiry, phenomenology, and grounded theory are the basic types of qualitative research. This chapter discusses the three major types of qualitative research—narrative inquiry, phenomenology, and grounded theory. Firstly, this chapter briefly discusses the issue of qualitative research and types. Secondly, it offers a conceptual understanding of narrative inquiry, phenomenology, and grounded theory including their basic characteristics. Finally, the chapter provides an outline of how these three types of qualitative research are applied in the field.

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

Access this chapter

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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Aspers, P. (2009). Empirical phenomenology: A qualitative research approach (The Cologne Seminars). Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, 9 (2), 1–12.

Article   Google Scholar  

Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide . Sage.

Google Scholar  

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis . Thousand Oaks.

Chun Tie, Y., Birks, M., & Francis, K. (2019). Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers. SAGE Open Medicine, 7 , 1–8.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research . Jossey-Bass.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory . Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions . Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative research . Pearson Education Inc.

Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3 (1), 42–55.

Husserl, E. (1970). Logical investigations (Vol. 1). Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

Josselson, R. (2010). Narrative research. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (Vol. 1). Sage.

Lester, S. (1999). An introduction to phenomenological research . Stan Lester Developments.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation . Jossey-Bass.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach . Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Padilla-Díaz, M. (2015). Phenomenology in educational qualitative research: Philosophy as science or philosophical science. International Journal of Educational Excellence, 1 (2), 101–110.

Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Sage publications.

Rassi, F., & Shahabi, Z. (2015). Husserl’s phenomenology and two terms of Noema and Noesis. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 53 , 29–34.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom . Oxford University Press.

Sloan, A., & Bowe, B. (2014). Phenomenology and hermeneutic phenomenology: The philosophy, the methodologies, and using hermeneutic phenomenology to investigate lecturers’ experiences of curriculum design. Quality & Quantity, 48 (3), 1291–1303.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Social Work, University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh and Macquarie School of Social Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

Rabiul Islam

Department of Social Work, University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi, Bangladesh

Md. Sayeed Akhter

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rabiul Islam .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

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

M. Rezaul Islam

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

Niaz Ahmed Khan

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

Rajendra Baikady

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

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

About this chapter

Islam, R., Sayeed Akhter, M. (2022). Narrative Inquiry, Phenomenology, and Grounded Theory in Qualitative Research. In: Islam, M.R., Khan, N.A., Baikady, R. (eds) Principles of Social Research Methodology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_8

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_8

Published : 27 October 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

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

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

eBook Packages : Social Sciences

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Narrative Analysis 101

Everything you need to know to get started

By: Ethar Al-Saraf (PhD)| Expert Reviewed By: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | March 2023

If you’re new to research, the host of qualitative analysis methods available to you can be a little overwhelming. In this post, we’ll  unpack the sometimes slippery topic of narrative analysis . We’ll explain what it is, consider its strengths and weaknesses , and look at when and when not to use this analysis method. 

Overview: Narrative Analysis

• What is narrative analysis (simple definition)
• The two overarching approaches  
• The strengths & weaknesses of narrative analysis
• When (and when not) to use it
• Key takeaways

What Is Narrative Analysis?

Simply put, narrative analysis is a qualitative analysis method focused on interpreting human experiences and motivations by looking closely at the stories (the narratives) people tell in a particular context.

In other words, a narrative analysis interprets long-form participant responses or written stories as data, to uncover themes and meanings . That data could be taken from interviews, monologues, written stories, or even recordings. In other words, narrative analysis can be used on both primary and secondary data to provide evidence from the experiences described.

That’s all quite conceptual, so let’s look at an example of how narrative analysis could be used.

Let’s say you’re interested in researching the beliefs of a particular author on popular culture. In that case, you might identify the characters , plotlines , symbols and motifs used in their stories. You could then use narrative analysis to analyse these in combination and against the backdrop of the relevant context.

This would allow you to interpret the underlying meanings and implications in their writing, and what they reveal about the beliefs of the author. In other words, you’d look to understand the views of the author by analysing the narratives that run through their work.

The Two Overarching Approaches

Generally speaking, there are two approaches that one can take to narrative analysis. Specifically, an inductive approach or a deductive approach. Each one will have a meaningful impact on how you interpret your data and the conclusions you can draw, so it’s important that you understand the difference.

First up is the inductive approach to narrative analysis.

The inductive approach takes a bottom-up view , allowing the data to speak for itself, without the influence of any preconceived notions . With this approach, you begin by looking at the data and deriving patterns and themes that can be used to explain the story, as opposed to viewing the data through the lens of pre-existing hypotheses, theories or frameworks. In other words, the analysis is led by the data.

For example, with an inductive approach, you might notice patterns or themes in the way an author presents their characters or develops their plot. You’d then observe these patterns, develop an interpretation of what they might reveal in the context of the story, and draw conclusions relative to the aims of your research.

Contrasted to this is the deductive approach.

With the deductive approach to narrative analysis, you begin by using existing theories that a narrative can be tested against . Here, the analysis adopts particular theoretical assumptions and/or provides hypotheses, and then looks for evidence in a story that will either verify or disprove them.

For example, your analysis might begin with a theory that wealthy authors only tell stories to get the sympathy of their readers. A deductive analysis might then look at the narratives of wealthy authors for evidence that will substantiate (or refute) the theory and then draw conclusions about its accuracy, and suggest explanations for why that might or might not be the case.

Which approach you should take depends on your research aims, objectives and research questions . If these are more exploratory in nature, you’ll likely take an inductive approach. Conversely, if they are more confirmatory in nature, you’ll likely opt for the deductive approach.

Need a helping hand?

Strengths & Weaknesses

Now that we have a clearer view of what narrative analysis is and the two approaches to it, it’s important to understand its strengths and weaknesses , so that you can make the right choices in your research project.

A primary strength of narrative analysis is the rich insight it can generate by uncovering the underlying meanings and interpretations of human experience. The focus on an individual narrative highlights the nuances and complexities of their experience, revealing details that might be missed or considered insignificant by other methods.

Another strength of narrative analysis is the range of topics it can be used for. The focus on human experience means that a narrative analysis can democratise your data analysis, by revealing the value of individuals’ own interpretation of their experience in contrast to broader social, cultural, and political factors.

All that said, just like all analysis methods, narrative analysis has its weaknesses. It’s important to understand these so that you can choose the most appropriate method for your particular research project.

The first drawback of narrative analysis is the problem of subjectivity and interpretation . In other words, a drawback of the focus on stories and their details is that they’re open to being understood differently depending on who’s reading them. This means that a strong understanding of the author’s cultural context is crucial to developing your interpretation of the data. At the same time, it’s important that you remain open-minded in how you interpret your chosen narrative and avoid making any assumptions .

A second weakness of narrative analysis is the issue of reliability and generalisation . Since narrative analysis depends almost entirely on a subjective narrative and your interpretation, the findings and conclusions can’t usually be generalised or empirically verified. Although some conclusions can be drawn about the cultural context, they’re still based on what will almost always be anecdotal data and not suitable for the basis of a theory, for example.

Last but not least, the focus on long-form data expressed as stories means that narrative analysis can be very time-consuming . In addition to the source data itself, you will have to be well informed on the author’s cultural context as well as other interpretations of the narrative, where possible, to ensure you have a holistic view. So, if you’re going to undertake narrative analysis, make sure that you allocate a generous amount of time to work through the data.

When To Use Narrative Analysis

As a qualitative method focused on analysing and interpreting narratives describing human experiences, narrative analysis is usually most appropriate for research topics focused on social, personal, cultural , or even ideological events or phenomena and how they’re understood at an individual level.

For example, if you were interested in understanding the experiences and beliefs of individuals suffering social marginalisation, you could use narrative analysis to look at the narratives and stories told by people in marginalised groups to identify patterns , symbols , or motifs that shed light on how they rationalise their experiences.

In this example, narrative analysis presents a good natural fit as it’s focused on analysing people’s stories to understand their views and beliefs at an individual level. Conversely, if your research was geared towards understanding broader themes and patterns regarding an event or phenomena, analysis methods such as content analysis or thematic analysis may be better suited, depending on your research aim .

Let’s recap

In this post, we’ve explored the basics of narrative analysis in qualitative research. The key takeaways are:

• Narrative analysis is a qualitative analysis method focused on interpreting human experience in the form of stories or narratives .
• There are two overarching approaches to narrative analysis: the inductive (exploratory) approach and the deductive (confirmatory) approach.
• Like all analysis methods, narrative analysis has a particular set of strengths and weaknesses .
• Narrative analysis is generally most appropriate for research focused on interpreting individual, human experiences as expressed in detailed , long-form accounts.

If you’d like to learn more about narrative analysis and qualitative analysis methods in general, be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach blog here . Alternatively, if you’re looking for hands-on help with your project, take a look at our 1-on-1 private coaching service .

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

Thanks. I need examples of narrative analysis

Here are some examples of research topics that could utilise narrative analysis:

Personal Narratives of Trauma: Analysing personal stories of individuals who have experienced trauma to understand the impact, coping mechanisms, and healing processes.

Identity Formation in Immigrant Communities: Examining the narratives of immigrants to explore how they construct and negotiate their identities in a new cultural context.

Media Representations of Gender: Analysing narratives in media texts (such as films, television shows, or advertisements) to investigate the portrayal of gender roles, stereotypes, and power dynamics.

Where can I find an example of a narrative analysis table ?

Please i need help with my project,

how can I cite this article in APA 7th style?

please mention the sources as well.

My research is mixed approach. I use interview,key_inforamt interview,FGD and document.so,which qualitative analysis is appropriate to analyze these data.Thanks

Which qualitative analysis methode is appropriate to analyze data obtain from intetview,key informant intetview,Focus group discussion and document.

I’ve finished my PhD. Now I need a “platform” that will help me objectively ascertain the tacit assumptions that are buried within a narrative. Can you help?

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

Case Study | Definition, Examples & Methods

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

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

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

Table of contents

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

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, January 30). Case Study | Definition, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved 6 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/case-studies/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

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

Definition and Introduction

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

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

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

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

How to Approach Writing a Case Analysis Paper

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

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

Introduction

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

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

Background Analysis

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

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

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

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

Identification of Problems

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

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

Alternative Solutions

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

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

Recommended Courses of Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problems to Avoid

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

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Ca se Study and Case Analysis Are Not the Same!

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

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

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

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

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Finder SG, Bliton MJ, editors. Peer Review, Peer Education, and Modeling in the Practice of Clinical Ethics Consultation: The Zadeh Project [Internet]. Cham (CH): Springer; 2018. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-90955-4_11

Peer Review, Peer Education, and Modeling in the Practice of Clinical Ethics Consultation: The Zadeh Project [Internet].

Standardizing the case narrative.

Lisa Rasmussen .

Affiliations

Published online: September 12, 2018.

This chapter is a meta-commentary on case commentaries in the present volume, which highlight potential hazards of using case narratives to evaluate clinical ethics consultation. I argue that in several ways, the commentaries illustrate how important it is, given the attestation model currently used to evaluate the practice of clinical ethics consultation, to develop an idea of a standardized narrative in clinical ethics consultation. If we do not, we risk mistaking clear, eloquent, or rhetorically impressive case narratives for rigorous, ethically appropriate consultations.

• Introduction

This chapter is a meta-commentary on case commentaries, in which theoretical questions about method in clinical ethics consultation meet the concrete exigencies of the practice. The difficulty in this task is looking through the lens of a case narrative that is necessarily limited (because it is a distillation of an experience lived through days and weeks of interaction with many people), and a set of commentaries that are themselves limited. The view this perspective may give of a consultation is not the same as the view that might result from an observer accompanying a consultant throughout the case. For example, commenters in this volume uniformly note additional information that was not provided in an already long case narrative. We have no evidence about whether these issues were broached in the case consultation itself; what we do know is that these issues did not appear in the narrative. As a result, this is a book about narrative composition as much as it is about methods in clinical ethics consultation.

But questioning narrative composition of consultation summaries does generate profitable discussion about the field of clinical ethics consultation itself. As we move towards standardization and quality improvement in clinical ethics consultation, peer review is a vital component for evaluating consultants and consultations. In this, we are hampered by the fact that there is no sustainable mechanism for allowing peer review of full consultations, and even less chance of observing a single consultant’s practice over many cases. Instead, we have the proxy (as currently utilized in the Attestation model [Kodish et al. 2013 ]) of the consultant’s case study. A flaw in this model is the possibility that excellent consultants can be poor writers, and that gifted writers may be poor consultants (where by “gifted” and “poor” writing I am referring to narrative compositional choices in addition to word or style choices). If we are to be evaluated by our case narratives, we must try to control for features irrelevant to quality evaluation, such as narrative ability, rhetorical skill and seductive rococo vocabulary. 1

We may also want to control for the consultant’s perspective: What we choose to accent in a narrative is what is important or noteworthy about the case to us . 2 We may not be lying or adorning a story, but we are choosing a perspective from which to view a case, and when those choices are made in composing the case study, other possible choices become invisible. There are standard elements that may be almost universally expected in case summaries (such as identifying whether a patient is competent or has decisional capacity, and if not, who the decision maker is and under what governing rule [legal default, HCPA, etc.]), but many aspects of what is noteworthy about a case will be idiosyncratically determined. A person sensitized to issues of faith, gender, culture, or socioeconomic status may focus on or preferentially include these issues, where another person might personally note the presence of such features during the case consultation itself but not center or even mention them in a particular case narrative if they do not play a significant role.

The conclusion I have arrived at after considering “The Zadeh Scenario” and accompanying peer reviews is that if quality attestation is to be largely evaluated based on the case narratives submitted to the judging panel, we must develop a fairly uniform standard for case reports themselves, which is distinct from developing a uniform standard for how a consultation is conducted. 3 In what follows, I note several features of the peer reviews accompanying the Finder case that belie different notions of what should be included in a case summary. This may -- or may not -- in turn belie different notions of what questions should be explored as part of doing clinical ethics consultation as a practice.

• Disparate Targets of Commentaries

The overall perception a reader of the case and peer reviews is left with is of an impressionistic landscape. Reviewers pick and choose, some working chronologically through the case, others simply picking up pieces they find noteworthy and elaborating on their presence or absence from the case narrative. The organization and focus of each peer review is sui generis ; they are anything but standardized. While there are a few commonalities, most notably with respect to procedure, the peer reviews diverge quite significantly from each other. Two articles observe that it is not immediately obvious that this is a clinical ethics consultation (Tarzian, who concludes after discussion that it is a case consultation, and Rosell & Johnson, who ask but do not explicitly answer this question).

I think this unsystematic approach accurately represents the state of the field. But this must be changed if quality improvement is really what we are after. Systems help to control for the fact of cognitive limitation. We all know healthcare providers should wash their hands, for example, but it took a fairly rigid study and assurance mechanisms to reveal how frequently that did not happen and how controlling for hand-washing and other straightforward, already-verified practices could dramatically affect patient well-being (Haynes et al. 2009 ). Establishing a system that controls for human cognitive limitations (such as forgetfulness) merely does a better job of making what is desired actually happen than does leaving it up to chance. If case narratives are to be the coin of the new realm of attestation and quality improvement, systematicity in reporting is necessary. 4 Systems establish standards to which individual instances can be compared for adherence; without a system in case reporting, for example, we cannot immediately judge whether a consultation was poor, middling, or excellent based on how the report is written or on what is and is not included. If all we have to evaluate the case is a written report, and we lack a standard for evaluating the written report, we lack a true standard for evaluating a case. And so, questions about method in consultation become, under an attestation model, questions about method in consultation summaries . We must articulate the links between what should be done in a consultation and what must be included in a case report.

To illustrate this point, consider two categories of observations represented in Part Two’s peer reviews: proceduralism, and feminist and multicultural issues. Not all peer reviewers mention both; procedural concerns are cited in four of the five peer reviews, cultural concerns by only three, and feminist concerns by only one. Several other concerns are each mentioned by only one peer reviewer. What do these differences tell us about the practice of consultation and about the practice of writing consultation reports?

Proceduralism

By “proceduralism,” I mean a focus on proper consultation procedures as evidenced by the case narrative. Tarzian focuses on proceduralism most clearly, as evidenced in her subtitle, “A Focus on Process,” and notes that her experience as a chair and member of two different task forces on setting standards in clinical ethics consultation left her with “an appreciation for procedural standards in health care ethics consultation” (Tarzian 2018 : 75). Her initial comments, for example, focus on whether this case actually constituted an ethics consultation, and whether it was a case consultation or something else; to answer these questions, she turns to the Core Competencies for Healthcare Ethics Consultation (ASBH 2011; hereafter “CC”), the current standard in the field, if there is one. Later, she observes that in “The Zadeh Scenario,” “there is ambiguity in several procedural aspects of how this consultation was handled,” such as whether the role of the former consultant (Moore) was clarified for staff and whether Finder clarified what role he himself would play in the case, with the ultimate question being, Who is really in charge of the case and of communicating with various stakeholders? (Tarzian 2018 : 79). Another ambiguity Tarzian comments on is the extent to which medical uncertainty (and the accompanying ethical uncertainty) regarding appropriate treatments was articulated both for health care providers and the patient’s family; she points out that “a strategy for determining how these decisions are made” is missing (Tarzian 2018 : 83).

Armstrong similarly focuses on procedures by commenting positively on the fact that Finder prepares for the consultation by reviewing the electronic medical record and notifying the attending that he is now involved in the case. However, like Tarzian, Armstrong also wonders whether Finder clarified his role with the family, and why an account of who is making decisions (and why) is missing from the narrative. 5 As practicing CECs will know, there are probably more “informal” or “curbside” consultations than formal ones, and Armstrong points out that “a line can and should be drawn between creating a safe space to discuss and examine moral feelings and a responsibility to follow-up and take action on issues uncovered during such discussions.” Because Finder describes both formal and informal requests for consultation, yielding uncertainty about which this case should involve, Armstrong is highlighting the need for the field to create appropriate procedures for these different kinds of consultations.

Hynds’ first comment is that consultations should occur “upon request” (that is, not “self-authorize[d]”), so as to avoid the role of the Ethics Police, and observes that it is not clear whether the first consultant in this case (Dr. Moore) was formally consulted. He also wonders about the presumably “hierarchic relationship” between Dr. Finder and Dr. Moore (Hynds 2018 : 92) and about the “seemingly unstructured or semi-structured” engagement of consultants with participants (Hynds 2018 : 89). He recommends, too, that while Finder explains that consultants in this case met with stakeholders multiple times (and alone), it is better if “interventions are kept to a minimum and all the main players are generally present” (Hynds 2018 : 90). The main procedural concerns in Hynds’ peer review thus concern the formality and source of the consult request, the appropriate structure of interactions with stakeholders, and the professional relationship between consultants.

Frolic & Rubin, like Tarzian and Armstrong, comment on the apparent lack of role clarity in this case. Not only was the role unclear, they suggest, other procedures were as well. For example, procedural clarity was not evident in this case regarding the “various phases of ethics consultation;” it is not clear from the narrative whether the “ethics consultation in this case contributed to any positive outcome, beyond a good relationship between Finder and the family” (Frolic and Rubin 2018 : 59); and it is unclear “if and how the voices of the bedside staff were included in the consultation process” (Frolic and Rubin 2018 : 59). Many of these procedural issues are attributed to a lack of “formalization of both the ethics consultant’s role and process” (Frolic and Rubin 2018 : 59).

Four of the five peer reviewers included procedural concerns in their remarks, 6 but it is noteworthy that they did not all cite the same procedural concerns. The most frequently cited procedural issue was that “The Zadeh Scenario” does not demonstrate that Finder made his role, or that of his colleague Dr. Moore, clear to the patient’s family or the medical staff. (It is worth noting, though, that he may have and simply chose not to mention this in the narrative.) Beyond this node of agreement, however, stated concerns about procedure vary. Armstrong mentions the importance of distinguishing between formal and informal consultations; Hynds stresses the importance that consultants should wait to be called (rather than being proactive) and that consultation meetings should usually involve all stakeholders; and Frolic & Rubin observe that a lack of formalization of the process of consultation may be causing a number of problems.

The peer reviews are not mutually incompatible, so I do not mean to suggest that they demonstrate some radical disagreement about clinical ethics consultation. But they do present quite different pictures of what a case narrative should include. This may help explain the focus on procedure, because it is an area where we might hope for some consensus. However, even in the comments on procedural issues, these peer reviews reveal different priorities.

Multicultural and Feminist Perspectives

A quote from Dr. Moore indicates that the family is Persian, and three of the peer reviewers take up this fact for discussion. Rosell & Johnson observe only in passing that “the narrative gives several indicators of cultural normative difference in regard to making end of life decisions” (Rosell and Johnson 2018 : 103), while Tarzian and Armstrong offer more extended comments. Tarzian raises the idea of “cultural competence” in providing health care, and asserts that “[i]t’s clear that this [cultural difference] contributed substantially to the perceived conflicts between the Hamadani family and the staff caring for Mrs. Hamadani” (Tarzian 2018 : 78). However, she notes that although Finder recognized these possible cultural issues in the case, “it’s unclear whether or how he addressed these conflicts in his role as the ethics consultant” (Tarzian 2018 : 80). Armstrong challenges whether we should assume, based on the family’s Persian culture, that the patient would have wanted her family to make decisions for her.

Encountering a patient and family with a cultural foundation that might affect their approach to decision-making is common in clinical ethics consultation. Cultural difference can be a linchpin for an entire case – or completely irrelevant. Here, two out of five peer reviews did not even include mention of the issue; but even of the three that did, the responses to the cultural element of the case have next to no overlap. To be specific, one flags it but does not assess Dr. Finder’s performance or narrative based on it; one assumes that the cultural issue “contributed substantially to the perceived conflicts” and faults Finder for not discussing how he incorporated these concerns into his consultation; and one notes that culture is not dispositive of wishes when a patient has not stated her own wishes.

Gender and social norms can also play a significant role in clinical ethics cases, but only one author, Armstrong, comments on the role of gender in the case at hand. This case involves an incapacitated mother with one son and two daughters, but the only apparent candidate for decision-maker appears to be the son. Armstrong observes that the daughters have only first names but the son has a first and last name (and is called “Mr. Zadeh” in the narrative), and that “none of the female characters’ opinions regarding treatment independent of Mr. Zadeh’s interpretation are explored…both the patient and her daughters form a silent chorus for Mr. Zadeh” (Armstrong 2018 : 69). It is worth noting that only one of the five peer reviewers found the issue of gender worth noting.

• Other Issues

In addition to procedural and cultural concerns, several other concerns are mentioned in Part Two, though in most cases only one author mentions each feature. Armstrong, Rosell & Johnson, and Frolic & Rubin all focus on the absence of the patient’s voice in “The Zadeh Scenario,” but mostly in passing. Rosell & Johnson remark that “Mrs. Hamadani is mostly absent in this consultation activity” (Rosell and Johnson 2018 : 106); Frolic & Rubin raise the question about what the patient wants as the final and most important category in a list of questions that are not answered in the narrative; Armstrong, in her discussion of “the missing patient,” notes that by not mentioning any conversation with the patient about her wishes, “the case appears to presume that she did not wish to be involved in decision-making, or that her wishes were adequately represented by her children” (Armstrong 2018 : 68).

Armstrong and Frolic & Rubin comment on Finder’s use of the electronic medical record to track readmitted patients who have had ethical issues during past admissions. Frolic & Rubin “worry this could lead to some inadvertent role confusion (what exactly is the ethics consultant contributing by ‘checking in’ on a previous case?) as well as potential violation of the patient’s privacy” (Frolic and Rubin 2018 : 58). Armstrong also mentions privacy, but emphasizes more that this practice makes it difficult to know when a consultation has ended, and whether follow-up in this way is part of continuity of care.

Frolic & Rubin also stress the importance of a consultant’s self-examination and reflecting critically on one’s own practices, noting that Finder does not engage in this practice in this narrative. Armstrong comments that there was evidence of moral distress among healthcare providers, but that Finder does not indicate that this issue was explored at all in the narrative.

• Reflections

The peer reviews in Part Two, like “The Zadeh Scenario,” are rich, thoughtful, and appropriate. But even if all of them are correct, I cannot help but conclude that no case narrative short of a novella could hope to satisfy all of these informational demands, and perhaps not even then. This is not a judgment about the authors of the case or peer reviews, who are attuned to the limits of this format. They also did not compose their comments on the premise that they were working towards some paradigm in case narrative. This book is not meant to recommend a model for adoption in case studies. However, because Finder’s case is (as the peer reviewers note) a much richer, more contextual and detailed narrative than is customary, and yet still all five authors in Part Two find much lacking in the description, the conclusions drawn must also hold for case studies in general given that they tend to be much shorter, more generic, and lacking in detail and context. The case study is a limited vehicle, in other words, and if it is to form the basis of attestation in clinical ethics consultation, we must standardize what we expect to see in a case narrative.

Imagine if the peer reviewers on this case comprised an attestation panel. Although there is some overlap in their positive comments (e.g., most praised Finder for the care he showed the family), there is hardly any overlap in their critical comments. What would this mean for an attestation evaluation of Finder? This returns us to the difference between assessing a consultant’s practice and assessing a case report, because the assumption in the attestation model is that the practice can be evaluated via the case report. This assumption is problematic.

First, if these peer reviews are any indication, authors will have idiosyncratic framing mechanisms for writing case reports, and evaluators will have idiosyncratic responses to cases. For example, Finder may have noticed, explored, and eliminated a feminist concern from the narrative because it played no role, and only one commenter (Armstrong) mentions feminist concerns in her paper. The lack of mention of feminist concerns in the case is merely absence of evidence, not evidence of absence. Armstrong’s concern with the way the case narrative is written (e.g., that the daughters have only first names and the son a first and last name) may be legitimate, but it may be a concern with Finder’s narrative choices , not a concern with his consultation practice (except by tenuous inference between narrative choices and consultation practices).

Three peer reviewers mention cultural issues, reacting to Dr. Moore’s statement that the family is Persian and to Finder’s conclusion that “cultural elements” may have played a role in the case. But there are many more possible interpretations of this case narrative. We have no actual evidence that culture was at play, rather than religion, family dynamics, economic issues, etc. The fact that the family is Persian (are the children also Persian? Or are they Persians born in the US?) ends up being an easy heuristic for “value difference,” but it is a heuristic that may mislead. It is not implausible that culture affected the case, but culture is not monolithic, and we characterize individuals inappropriately if we assume that individual beliefs follow directly from cultural context. Finder may have been blind to these issues, exquisitely attuned to them, or somewhere in between; the commenters may have chosen to focus on “pet” concerns, may have drilled right to the heart of the case, or somewhere in between. We simply lack the information we would need to establish which is the case.

In the account of the proposed Attestation model (Kodish et al. 2013 ), the authors recognize the problem of interrater reliability (which is part, but not all, of the problem outlined above) and offer a mechanism to address it. As the evaluation of the portfolios moved forward, the 12 members of the assessment group “convened to establish assessment metrics” based on the portfolios they had received, then piloted the instruments for face validity and construct validity. It is the problem of “construct validity” – “the ability of the test to measure what is intended” – that I mean to focus on. What I have been illustrating in discussing these case commentaries is the problem of our lack of standards in case reports. If we think it is important to include in a case report a discussion of even those issues that played no significant role during the case, we must offer a template or framework of case reports that prompts discussion of such issues, even if that amounts to a statement that this issue was not relevant to the case. 7

Quality improvement procedures only work if they capture all and only what is appropriate to the task. We have a double-layer problem in the idea of an attestation model of assessing clinical ethics consultation, because we lack standards at the level of the individual consultation, and we haven’t even begun to discuss standard expectations of case summaries. This model of an extended case study with commentaries is worth repeating as we develop standards in the field, because such a process generates the diverse elements of a consultation and its reporting that practitioners find important. 8 As the field’s assessment mechanisms are shaped, these elements must be standardized and promulgated so that authors of case reports know the bases on which their cases will be assessed. Without clear direction regarding the necessary elements in a case report, attestation of abilities based on case summaries will be impossible, unfair, or arbitrary.

• Armstrong K (2018) Telling about engagement is not enough: seeking the “ethics” of ethics consultation in clinical ethics case reports. In: Finder SG, Bliton MJ (eds) Peer review, peer education, and modeling in the practice of clinical ethics consultation: the Zadeh project. Springer, Cham, pp 63–73. [ PubMed : 31314226 ]
• Chambers T (1999) The fiction of bioethics: cases as literary texts. Routledge, New York.
• Finder SG (2018) The Zadeh scenario. In: Finder SG, Bliton MJ (eds) Peer review, peer education, and modeling in the practice of clinical ethics consultation: the Zadeh project. Springer, Cham, pp 21–42. [ PubMed : 31314226 ]
• Frolic A, Rubin SB (2018) Critical self-reflection as moral practice: a collaborative meditation on peer review in ethics consultation. In: Finder SG, Bliton MJ (eds) Peer review, peer education, and modeling in the practice of clinical ethics consultation: the Zadeh project. Springer, Cham, pp 47–61. [ PubMed : 31314392 ]
• Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, for the safe surgery saves lives study group et al (2009) A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in global population. NEJM 360:491–449. [ PubMed : 19144931 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hynds J (2018) Ethics consultation, professional praxis, and what it means to be a “consultant”. In: Finder SG, Bliton MJ (eds) Peer review, peer education, and modeling in the practice of clinical ethics consultation: the Zadeh project. Springer, Cham, pp 85–97. [ PubMed : 31314226 ]
• Kodish E, Fins JJ, Braddock C et al (2013) Quality attestation for clinical ethics consultants: a two-step model from the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities. Hastings Cent Rep 43(5):26–36. [ PMC free article : PMC4849543 ] [ PubMed : 24092588 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rosell T, Johnson B (2018) This may, or may not, be an ethics consultation. In: Finder SG, Bliton MJ (eds) Peer review, peer education, and modeling in the practice of clinical ethics consultation: the Zadeh project. Springer, Cham, pp 99–107.
• Tarzian AJ (2018) Ethics consultation for Mrs. Hamadani: a focus on process. In: Finder SG, Bliton MJ (eds) Peer review, peer education, and modeling in the practice of clinical ethics consultation: the Zadeh project. Springer, Cham, pp 75–84. [ PubMed : 31314226 ]

For example, consider some of the ways commenters describe Finder’s narrative: “wondrously rich;” “polished;” “wonderfully detailed and engaging;” “rich and thoughtful;” a “gift.” Though some of this praise is (rightfully) due to gratitude for the fact that Finder makes himself vulnerable in this new mechanism for peer review, it is also an honest assessment of the way in which the narrative is written. Clearly the commenters did not shirk from challenging elements of the narrative due to their praise, but we know from the fields of psychology and sociology that style affects assessment. For example, in the “illusory effect,” a message delivered repeatedly is believed more frequently. By repeating claims about “caring for” or “listening to” a patient or family, a consultant could affect an assessment of the case narrative (and thus, the consultation itself) as including evidence that a consultant had the right attitude towards the participants.

As Tod Chambers puts it in his volume about the topic of written cases, The Fiction of Bioethics , “What ethicists have generally ignored is that cases – the data by which they test the relevance of moral theory – are fictions. That is, they are made up, constructed and thus follow conventions of representation that inevitably bias how one understands this information ” ( 1999 , p. 10; emphasis added).

Obviously in this case, Finder and Bliton have not conceived of the volume as focusing on what they argue is a paradigm case narrative. The purpose of the case narrative for the volume and the purpose of case studies written as part of a dossier for quality evaluation may be quite different. Therefore my comments are not directed at this volume’s device in particular, but rather, at the more general activity of evaluating consultants and consultations via written reports. (This also raises the question of what to call such writing: “case study” implies a quite distilled summary of a case, while “case narrative” implies a more contextualized account that invites the reader to consider stakeholders more as characters, with personalities, interior lives, and motivations. A discussion of what we should expect from cases summarized for attestation purposes should start with what to call them, and what general tenor they should have within this continuum of possibilities.)

I recognize that a likely consequence of systematizing or standardizing the case report will be a flattening of richness and detail. But flattening of variation is exactly the point of systems and standards, and it is not clear to me how one might steer between this Scylla and Charybdis. However, it does suggest that case studies or reports for credentialing purposes (in which careers might eventually be at stake) can exist simultaneously with richer narratives meant for other venues.

Armstrong goes further than Tarzian with this concern, offering an extended commentary on “the missing patient” in Finder’s narrative.

I have not included in this count Rosell & Johnson, who describe their commentary as a phenomenological analysis in an “interrogative” mode and do not couch their comments in “procedural” terms. However, many of their remarks may have procedural elements – for example, they note that patients have the right not to receive particular treatments or care from particular providers, and that they have the right under law and because of respect for autonomy to make decisions for themselves.

One possibility for ensuring comprehensiveness both during a consultation and in a case report is the use of a standardized checklist. I gave a presentation on such a mechanism at the International Conference on Clinical Ethics Consultation 2015, in New York, NY.

For example, journals could add a regular feature emulating this approach, and conferences such as the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) and the International Conference for Clinical Ethics consultation could provide conference slots for panels arranged for this commentary.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

• Cite this Page Rasmussen L. Standardizing the Case Narrative. 2018 Sep 12. In: Finder SG, Bliton MJ, editors. Peer Review, Peer Education, and Modeling in the Practice of Clinical Ethics Consultation: The Zadeh Project [Internet]. Cham (CH): Springer; 2018. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-90955-4_11
• PDF version of this page (298K)
• PDF version of this title (2.4M)

In this Page

Similar articles in pubmed.

• Just a Collection of Recollections: Clinical Ethics Consultation and the Interplay of Evaluating Voices. [HEC Forum. 2016] Just a Collection of Recollections: Clinical Ethics Consultation and the Interplay of Evaluating Voices. Bartlett VL, Bliton MJ, Finder SG. HEC Forum. 2016 Dec; 28(4):301-320.
• Philosophy of Healthcare Ethics Practice Statements: Quality Attestation and Beyond. [HEC Forum. 2018] Philosophy of Healthcare Ethics Practice Statements: Quality Attestation and Beyond. Notini L. HEC Forum. 2018 Dec; 30(4):341-360.
• Review (Meta-) Methodological Lessons for Ethics Consultation. [Peer Review, Peer Education, a...] Review (Meta-) Methodological Lessons for Ethics Consultation. Aulisio MP. Peer Review, Peer Education, and Modeling in the Practice of Clinical Ethics Consultation: The Zadeh Project. 2018
• Ethics Consultation Quality Assessment Tool: A Novel Method for Assessing the Quality of Ethics Case Consultations Based on Written Records. [Am J Bioeth. 2016] Ethics Consultation Quality Assessment Tool: A Novel Method for Assessing the Quality of Ethics Case Consultations Based on Written Records. Pearlman RA, Foglia MB, Fox E, Cohen JH, Chanko BL, Berkowitz KA. Am J Bioeth. 2016; 16(3):3-14.
• Review Peer Review and Beyond: Towards a Dialogical Approach of Quality in Ethics Support. [Peer Review, Peer Education, a...] Review Peer Review and Beyond: Towards a Dialogical Approach of Quality in Ethics Support. Widdershoven GAM, Molewijk B, Metselaar S. Peer Review, Peer Education, and Modeling in the Practice of Clinical Ethics Consultation: The Zadeh Project. 2018

Recent Activity

• Standardizing the Case Narrative - Peer Review, Peer Education, and Modeling in ... Standardizing the Case Narrative - Peer Review, Peer Education, and Modeling in the Practice of Clinical Ethics Consultation: The Zadeh Project

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Narrative Analysis: Methods and Examples

Narrative analysis is a powerful qualitative research tool. Narrative research can uncover behaviors, feelings and motivations that aren’t expressed explicitly….

Narrative analysis is a powerful qualitative research tool. Narrative research can uncover behaviors, feelings and motivations that aren’t expressed explicitly. It also provides rich linguistic data that may shed light on various aspects of cultural or social phenomena.

Narrative analysis provides researchers with detailed information about their subjects that they couldn’t get through other methods. Narrative analysis in qualitative research reveals hidden motivations that aren’t easy to perceive directly. This is especially true in research conducted with cultural subjects where the researcher must peel the many layers of a culture.

Let’s look at how narrative research is performed, what it can tell us about the subject, and some examples of narrative research.

What Is Narrative Research?

Examples of narrative research, difference between narrative analysis and case study, analyzing results in the narrative method.

Narrative analysis is a form of qualitative research in which the researcher focuses on a topic and analyzes the data collected from case studies, surveys, observations or other similar methods. The researchers write their findings, then review and analyze them.

To conduct narrative analysis, researchers must understand the background, setting, social and cultural context of the research subjects. This gives researchers a better idea of what their subjects mean in their narration. It’s especially true in context-rich research where there are many hidden layers of meaning that can only be uncovered by an in-depth understanding of the culture or environment.

Before starting narrative research, researchers need to know as much about their research subjects as possible. They interview key informants and collect large amounts of text from them. They even use other sources, such as existing literature and personal recollections.

From this large base of information, researchers choose a few instances they feel are good examples of what they want to talk about and then analyze them in depth.

Through this approach, researchers can gain a holistic view of the subject’s life and activities. It can show what motivates people and provide a better view of the society that the subjects live in by enabling researchers to see how individuals interact with one another.

• It’s been used by researchers to study indigenous peoples of various countries, such as the Maori in New Zealand.
• It can be used in medicine. Researchers, for instance, can study how doctors communicate with their patients during end-of-life care.
• The narrative model has been used to explore the relationship between music and social change in East Africa.
• Narrative research is being used to explore the differences in emotions experienced by different generations in Japanese society.

Through these examples of narrative research, we can see its nature and how it fills a gap left by other research methods.

Many people confuse narrative analysis in qualitative research with case studies. Here are some key differences between the two:

• A case study examines one context in depth, whereas narrative research explores how a subject has acted in various contexts across time
• Case studies are often longer and more detailed, but they rarely provide an overview of the subject’s life or experiences
• Narrative analysis implies that researchers are observing several instances that encompass the subject’s life, which is why it provides a richer view of things

Both tools can give similar results, but there are some differences that lead researchers to choose one or the other or, perhaps, even both in their research design.

Once the narratives have been collected, researchers notice certain patterns and themes emerging as they read and analyze the text. They note these down, compare them with other research on the subject, figure out how it all fits together and then find a theory that can explain these findings.

Many social scientists have used narrative research as a valuable tool to analyze their concepts and theories. This is mainly because narrative analysis is a more thorough and multifaceted method. It helps researchers not only build a deeper understanding of their subject, but also helps them figure out why people act and react as they do.

Storytelling is a central feature of narrative research. The narrative interview is an interactive conversation. This process can be very intimate and sometimes bring about powerful emotions from both parties. Therefore, this form of qualitative research isn’t suitable for everyone. The interviewer needs to be a good listener and must understand the interview process. The interviewee also needs to be comfortable to be able to provide authentic narratives.

Understanding what kind of research to use is a powerful tool for a manager. We can use narrative analysis in many ways. Narrative research is a multifaceted method that has the potential to show different results based on the researcher’s intentions for their study.

Learning how to use such tools will improve the productivity of teams. Harappa’s Thinking Critically course will show you the way. Learners will understand how to better process information and consider different perspectives in their analysis, which will allow for better-informed decision making. Our faculty will provide real-world insights to ensure an impactful learning experience that takes professionals at every stage of their careers to the next level.

Explore Harappa Diaries to learn more about topics such as Phenomenological Research , Types Of Survey Research , Examples Of Correlational Research and Tips to Improve your Analytical Skills to upgrade your knowledge and skills.

• Privacy Policy

Home » Narrative Analysis – Types, Methods and Examples

Narrative Analysis – Types, Methods and Examples

Table of Contents

Narrative Analysis

Definition:

Narrative analysis is a qualitative research methodology that involves examining and interpreting the stories or narratives people tell in order to gain insights into the meanings, experiences, and perspectives that underlie them. Narrative analysis can be applied to various forms of communication, including written texts, oral interviews, and visual media.

In narrative analysis, researchers typically examine the structure, content, and context of the narratives they are studying, paying close attention to the language, themes, and symbols used by the storytellers. They may also look for patterns or recurring motifs within the narratives, and consider the cultural and social contexts in which they are situated.

Types of Narrative Analysis

Types of Narrative Analysis are as follows:

Content Analysis

This type of narrative analysis involves examining the content of a narrative in order to identify themes, motifs, and other patterns. Researchers may use coding schemes to identify specific themes or categories within the text, and then analyze how they are related to each other and to the overall narrative. Content analysis can be used to study various forms of communication, including written texts, oral interviews, and visual media.

Structural Analysis

This type of narrative analysis focuses on the formal structure of a narrative, including its plot, character development, and use of literary devices. Researchers may analyze the narrative arc, the relationship between the protagonist and antagonist, or the use of symbolism and metaphor. Structural analysis can be useful for understanding how a narrative is constructed and how it affects the reader or audience.

Discourse Analysis

This type of narrative analysis focuses on the language and discourse used in a narrative, including the social and cultural context in which it is situated. Researchers may analyze the use of specific words or phrases, the tone and style of the narrative, or the ways in which social and cultural norms are reflected in the narrative. Discourse analysis can be useful for understanding how narratives are influenced by larger social and cultural structures.

Phenomenological Analysis

This type of narrative analysis focuses on the subjective experience of the narrator, and how they interpret and make sense of their experiences. Researchers may analyze the language used to describe experiences, the emotions expressed in the narrative, or the ways in which the narrator constructs meaning from their experiences. Phenomenological analysis can be useful for understanding how people make sense of their own lives and experiences.

Critical Analysis

This type of narrative analysis involves examining the political, social, and ideological implications of a narrative, and questioning its underlying assumptions and values. Researchers may analyze the ways in which a narrative reflects or reinforces dominant power structures, or how it challenges or subverts those structures. Critical analysis can be useful for understanding the role that narratives play in shaping social and cultural norms.

Autoethnography

This type of narrative analysis involves using personal narratives to explore cultural experiences and identity formation. Researchers may use their own personal narratives to explore issues such as race, gender, or sexuality, and to understand how larger social and cultural structures shape individual experiences. Autoethnography can be useful for understanding how individuals negotiate and navigate complex cultural identities.

Thematic Analysis

This method involves identifying themes or patterns that emerge from the data, and then interpreting these themes in relation to the research question. Researchers may use a deductive approach, where they start with a pre-existing theoretical framework, or an inductive approach, where themes are generated from the data itself.

Narrative Analysis Conducting Guide

Here are some steps for conducting narrative analysis:

• Identify the research question: Narrative analysis begins with identifying the research question or topic of interest. Researchers may want to explore a particular social or cultural phenomenon, or gain a deeper understanding of a particular individual’s experience.
• Collect the narratives: Researchers then collect the narratives or stories that they will analyze. This can involve collecting written texts, conducting interviews, or analyzing visual media.
• Transcribe and code the narratives: Once the narratives have been collected, they are transcribed into a written format, and then coded in order to identify themes, motifs, or other patterns. Researchers may use a coding scheme that has been developed specifically for the study, or they may use an existing coding scheme.
• Analyze the narratives: Researchers then analyze the narratives, focusing on the themes, motifs, and other patterns that have emerged from the coding process. They may also analyze the formal structure of the narratives, the language used, and the social and cultural context in which they are situated.
• Interpret the findings: Finally, researchers interpret the findings of the narrative analysis, and draw conclusions about the meanings, experiences, and perspectives that underlie the narratives. They may use the findings to develop theories, make recommendations, or inform further research.

Applications of Narrative Analysis

Narrative analysis is a versatile qualitative research method that has applications across a wide range of fields, including psychology, sociology, anthropology, literature, and history. Here are some examples of how narrative analysis can be used:

• Understanding individuals’ experiences: Narrative analysis can be used to gain a deeper understanding of individuals’ experiences, including their thoughts, feelings, and perspectives. For example, psychologists might use narrative analysis to explore the stories that individuals tell about their experiences with mental illness.
• Exploring cultural and social phenomena: Narrative analysis can also be used to explore cultural and social phenomena, such as gender, race, and identity. Sociologists might use narrative analysis to examine how individuals understand and experience their gender identity.
• Analyzing historical events: Narrative analysis can be used to analyze historical events, including those that have been recorded in literary texts or personal accounts. Historians might use narrative analysis to explore the stories of survivors of historical traumas, such as war or genocide.
• Examining media representations: Narrative analysis can be used to examine media representations of social and cultural phenomena, such as news stories, films, or television shows. Communication scholars might use narrative analysis to examine how news media represent different social groups.
• Developing interventions: Narrative analysis can be used to develop interventions to address social and cultural problems. For example, social workers might use narrative analysis to understand the experiences of individuals who have experienced domestic violence, and then use that knowledge to develop more effective interventions.

Examples of Narrative Analysis

Here are some examples of how narrative analysis has been used in research:

• Personal narratives of illness: Researchers have used narrative analysis to examine the personal narratives of individuals living with chronic illness, to understand how they make sense of their experiences and construct their identities.
• Oral histories: Historians have used narrative analysis to analyze oral histories to gain insights into individuals’ experiences of historical events and social movements.
• Children’s stories: Researchers have used narrative analysis to analyze children’s stories to understand how they understand and make sense of the world around them.
• Personal diaries : Researchers have used narrative analysis to examine personal diaries to gain insights into individuals’ experiences of significant life events, such as the loss of a loved one or the transition to adulthood.
• Memoirs : Researchers have used narrative analysis to analyze memoirs to understand how individuals construct their life stories and make sense of their experiences.
• Life histories : Researchers have used narrative analysis to examine life histories to gain insights into individuals’ experiences of migration, displacement, or social exclusion.

Purpose of Narrative Analysis

The purpose of narrative analysis is to gain a deeper understanding of the stories that individuals tell about their experiences, identities, and beliefs. By analyzing the structure, content, and context of these stories, researchers can uncover patterns and themes that shed light on the ways in which individuals make sense of their lives and the world around them.

The primary purpose of narrative analysis is to explore the meanings that individuals attach to their experiences. This involves examining the different elements of a story, such as the plot, characters, setting, and themes, to identify the underlying values, beliefs, and attitudes that shape the story. By analyzing these elements, researchers can gain insights into the ways in which individuals construct their identities, understand their relationships with others, and make sense of the world.

Narrative analysis can also be used to identify patterns and themes across multiple stories. This involves comparing and contrasting the stories of different individuals or groups to identify commonalities and differences. By analyzing these patterns and themes, researchers can gain insights into broader cultural and social phenomena, such as gender, race, and identity.

In addition, narrative analysis can be used to develop interventions that address social and cultural problems. By understanding the stories that individuals tell about their experiences, researchers can develop interventions that are tailored to the unique needs of different individuals and groups.

Overall, the purpose of narrative analysis is to provide a rich, nuanced understanding of the ways in which individuals construct meaning and make sense of their lives. By analyzing the stories that individuals tell, researchers can gain insights into the complex and multifaceted nature of human experience.

When to use Narrative Analysis

Here are some situations where narrative analysis may be appropriate:

• Studying life stories: Narrative analysis can be useful in understanding how individuals construct their life stories, including the events, characters, and themes that are important to them.
• Analyzing cultural narratives: Narrative analysis can be used to analyze cultural narratives, such as myths, legends, and folktales, to understand their meanings and functions.
• Exploring organizational narratives: Narrative analysis can be helpful in examining the stories that organizations tell about themselves, their histories, and their values, to understand how they shape the culture and practices of the organization.
• Investigating media narratives: Narrative analysis can be used to analyze media narratives, such as news stories, films, and TV shows, to understand how they construct meaning and influence public perceptions.
• Examining policy narratives: Narrative analysis can be helpful in examining policy narratives, such as political speeches and policy documents, to understand how they construct ideas and justify policy decisions.

Characteristics of Narrative Analysis

Here are some key characteristics of narrative analysis:

• Focus on stories and narratives: Narrative analysis is concerned with analyzing the stories and narratives that people tell, whether they are oral or written, to understand how they shape and reflect individuals’ experiences and identities.
• Emphasis on context: Narrative analysis seeks to understand the context in which the narratives are produced and the social and cultural factors that shape them.
• Interpretive approach: Narrative analysis is an interpretive approach that seeks to identify patterns and themes in the stories and narratives and to understand the meaning that individuals and communities attach to them.
• Iterative process: Narrative analysis involves an iterative process of analysis, in which the researcher continually refines their understanding of the narratives as they examine more data.
• Attention to language and form : Narrative analysis pays close attention to the language and form of the narratives, including the use of metaphor, imagery, and narrative structure, to understand the meaning that individuals and communities attach to them.
• Reflexivity : Narrative analysis requires the researcher to reflect on their own assumptions and biases and to consider how their own positionality may shape their interpretation of the narratives.
• Qualitative approach: Narrative analysis is typically a qualitative research method that involves in-depth analysis of a small number of cases rather than large-scale quantitative studies.

Advantages of Narrative Analysis

Here are some advantages of narrative analysis:

• Rich and detailed data : Narrative analysis provides rich and detailed data that allows for a deep understanding of individuals’ experiences, emotions, and identities.
• Humanizing approach: Narrative analysis allows individuals to tell their own stories and express their own perspectives, which can help to humanize research and give voice to marginalized communities.
• Holistic understanding: Narrative analysis allows researchers to understand individuals’ experiences in their entirety, including the social, cultural, and historical contexts in which they occur.
• Flexibility : Narrative analysis is a flexible research method that can be applied to a wide range of contexts and research questions.
• Interpretive insights: Narrative analysis provides interpretive insights into the meanings that individuals attach to their experiences and the ways in which they construct their identities.
• Appropriate for sensitive topics: Narrative analysis can be particularly useful in researching sensitive topics, such as trauma or mental health, as it allows individuals to express their experiences in their own words and on their own terms.
• Can lead to policy implications: Narrative analysis can provide insights that can inform policy decisions and interventions, particularly in areas such as health, education, and social policy.

Limitations of Narrative Analysis

Here are some of the limitations of narrative analysis:

• Subjectivity : Narrative analysis relies on the interpretation of researchers, which can be influenced by their own biases and assumptions.
• Limited generalizability: Narrative analysis typically involves in-depth analysis of a small number of cases, which limits its generalizability to broader populations.
• Ethical considerations: The process of eliciting and analyzing narratives can raise ethical concerns, particularly when sensitive topics such as trauma or abuse are involved.
• Limited control over data collection: Narrative analysis often relies on data that is already available, such as interviews, oral histories, or written texts, which can limit the control that researchers have over the quality and completeness of the data.
• Time-consuming: Narrative analysis can be a time-consuming research method, particularly when analyzing large amounts of data.
• Interpretation challenges: Narrative analysis requires researchers to make complex interpretations of data, which can be challenging and time-consuming.
• Limited statistical analysis: Narrative analysis is typically a qualitative research method that does not lend itself well to statistical analysis.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Cluster Analysis – Types, Methods and Examples

Discriminant Analysis – Methods, Types and...

MANOVA (Multivariate Analysis of Variance) –...

Documentary Analysis – Methods, Applications and...

ANOVA (Analysis of variance) – Formulas, Types...

Graphical Methods – Types, Examples and Guide

• Laurel Learning Tips (Blog)
• Schedule Time to Discuss Your Needs
• 608-219-3594
• About Deborah Laurel
• Questions & Answers
• Capabilities Statement
• Training Philosophy
• Testimonials
• International Experience
• Where We've Been - Travelogue
• Whitepapers/Articles
• Our Curriculum Design Process
• Our Tailored Programs
• Energy Industry Training Experience for Deborah Laurel
• How to Get Energy Conservation Training Results
• Training: Designing for Lasting Change
• Let’s Turn the Lights OFF!
• Auditing Training From an Adult Learning Perspective
• Two Models of Adult Education
• Auditing for Quality Training
• Designing and Delivering Attitude-Changing Learning
• Designing and Delivering Dynamic Learning (4 Day)
• Designing Participant-Centered Curriculum
• 
Designing and Delivering Dynamic Learning (5 Day)
• How to Avoid Learner Overload
• How to Design an Accelerated Learning Program
• Increasing Training Effectiveness
• Polishing Presentation Skills
• Presentation Skills: Be Your Informative or Persuasive Best!
• Take the Pain Out of Training Design for Subject Matter Experts
• Technical Trainer’s Toolbox
• Custom Training Audits
• Audit Approach
• Training Audit Clients
• Curriculum Design Approach
• Technical Curriculum Design
• Banking Curriculum Design
• Energy Curriculum Design
• Classroom Training Overview
• Customized Training Programs
• Half-Day Workshops
• One-Day Workshops
• Two-Day Workshops
• Three-Day Workshops
• Four-Day Workshops
• Five-Day Workshops
• Virtual Training
• Self-Paced Learning

Tip #509: Directions for Writing a Narrative Case Study

• March 17, 2014
• case study , conversation , decisions , detail , development , dialogue , instructions , questions , success , thinking

“If written directions alone would suffice, libraries wouldn’t need to have the rest of the universities attached.” Judith Martin

I created these instructions for writing a narrative case study, for the benefit of three health professionals in Kenya who were contracted to create case studies for a US Agency for Industrial Development training program. Please see what you think:

A narrative case study is a story of a real life problem or situation that provides sufficient background data so that the problem can be analyzed and solved.

• A good case study is written in the form of a story.
• It has a problem for the readers to solve.
• It has characters who have names and use authentic dialogue.
• It is descriptive, with realistic details.
• The flow is easy to follow.
• There is sufficient information so that the readers can understand what the problem is and, after thinking about it and analyzing the information, come up with a proposed solution.
• It has pertinent questions that focus the readers on the key points.

Directions:

• Draw your information from real situations that were either resolved successfully or unsuccessfully.
• Your case study should include:
• A decision maker who is dealing with some question or problem that needs to be resolved;
• A description of the problem;
• An explanation of the context in which the problem occurred; and
• Sufficient supporting data.
• Your case study should provide the answers to these questions:
• What is the issue?
• Who is involved?
• When did the situation occur?
• Where did the situation take place?
• Why did the issue/problem arise?
• What key facts should be considered?
• What questions do the key characters need to resolve?
• What alternatives are available to the decision-maker?
• Your case study should have five sections:
• Introduction
• Answers to Questions [identify what the actual owner did in the situation]

If you would like a copy of the Narrative Case Study Template that accompanied these directions, just contact Deborah Laurel .

May your learning be sweet.

Related Posts

Tip #1024:  how organizations can stop losing new hires (and volunteers).

The New Hire Experience Imagine that you’re a new hire (or volunteer). You

Tip #1023- Don’t Volunteer!

Even if you believe in a nonprofit’s mission and want to make a

Tip #1022: My Equatorial Guinea Adventure: Heading Home

I took the hotel shuttle to the airport and luckily there was a

Two new virtual business workshops for Spring 2023

Presentation Skills: Learn to be informative and persuasive. 8:30-4:00 pm,  4/26/2023

Register here

Six Steps to Yes: Acquire instant influence in a virtual world. 8:30 – 12:30pm, 3/28/2023

It doesn’t have to be difficult to Deal with Difficult People .

Share This Post

Wisconsin Woman-Owned Business Enterprise

The Answer is Yes Certified Trainer

Home » Education » Difference Between Case Study and Phenomenology

Difference Between Case Study and Phenomenology

Main difference – case study vs phenomenology.

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

In this article, we will be discussing,

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

What is a Case Study

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

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

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

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

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

What is Phenomenology

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

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

Figure 2: Phenomenology often involves long personal interviews.

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

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

Data Collection

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

Phenomenology: Interviews are the main method of data collection.

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

Phenomenology: Phenomenology focus on various individuals and their experiences.

Limitations

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

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

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

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

About the Author: Hasa

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

​You May Also Like These

Leave a reply cancel reply.