bounded system case study definition

Science-Education-Research

Prof. Keith S. Taber's site

Case studies as bounded systems

A topic in research methodology

Case study is a methodology widely used in educational research. Case studies vary across scales, but each case needs to be bounded.

Case study tends to be naturalistic as normally the case is embedded within a context from which it cannot be removed for independent (laboratory / clinical) study. The boundaries between the case and its context may not always be clear. For example, we may look at one episode that is part of a lesson; one group of students working in the context of a class; one topic that is part of a teaching scheme… We can identify the specific instance that is our case, but we cannot dissect it from its natural context without severing connections that are inherent to the nature of the case: and the case cannot be fully appreciated without some knowledge of its context.

As the philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend wrote,

"…clarity, as early anatomists knew, is a property of corpses, not of living things…" Feyerabend, 1999

A living organism is continuously exchanging matter and energy with, and is so shaping, its environment. We might consider the case that is studied in case study to be a metaphorical organism in a similar sense.

The researcher needs to set out the bounds for the case, and to justify how the case can be considered as one instance among others – a coherent and integrated system in its own right.

Stake (1995) suggests " A teacher may be a case. But her teaching lacks the specificity, the boundedness, to be a case." However, a teacher's teaching of a particular topic to a particular class could be a case.

Sources cited:

Feyerabend, P. (1999). Conquest of abundance. A tale of abstraction versus the richness of being . (B. Terpstra, Ed.). Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Taber, K. S. (2010). Preparing teachers for a research-based profession . In M. V. Zuljan & J. Vogrinc (Eds.), F acilitating effective student learning through teacher research and innovation (pp. 19-47). Ljubljana: Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana. [ download Facilitating effective student learning through teacher research and innovation ]

My introduction to educational research:

Taber, K. S. (2013). Classroom-based Research and Evidence-based Practice: An introduction (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Chapter 3: Research Methods

This study seeks to provide insight into the process of conducting community-based research. In order to do so, the study utilizes a qualitative case study approach to examine the methodology of community-based research. Two contrasting cases of CBR are described and analyzed in order to understand the issues that arise when conducting CBR, the factors that facilitate or hinder the process, and the benefits of conducting CBR. Finally, these contrasting cases are considered to determine what this study can contribute to the field of CBR. This chapter details case study methodology as well as multiple case design. It also describes the methodology of community-based research, the participants of the study, data collection and analysis, and issues around credibility, including my own subjectivities that may have influenced the research.

Methodological Framework

In order to explore the collaborative process of conducting community-based research, this study utilizes a qualitative case study approach. Case studies can be particularly useful for studying a process, program or individual in an in-depth, holistic way that allows for deep understanding (Merriam, 1998). As Merriam points out,

A case study design is employed to gain an in-depth understanding of the situation and meaning for those involved. The interest is in process rather than outcomes, in context rather than a specific variable, in discovery rather than confirmation (p. 19).

There are some differences in how researchers define case study. Some researchers think of case study as the object to be studied (Stake, 2000), while others define case study as a process of investigation (Creswell, 2002). Creswell defines case study as "an in-depth exploration of a bounded system (e.g., an activity, event, process, or individuals) based on extensive data collection" (p. 485). Creswell recommends case study as a methodology if the problem to be studied "relates to developing an in-depth understanding of a 'case' or bounded system" (p. 496) and if the purpose is to understand "an event, activity, process, or one or more individuals" (p. 496). Patton (1990) suggests that case studies are valuable in creating deep understanding of particular people, problems or situations in comprehensive ways.

This study is particularly suitable for a case study design because it is a bounded system, it is contextual, and it is a study of process (Merriam, 1998). Like Creswell (2002), Stake (2000) defines case study as the study of a "bounded system" (p. 436). According to Creswell (2002), "'Bounded' means that the case is separated out for research in terms of time, place, or some physical boundaries" (p. 485). In other words, it is possible to create limits around the object to be studied (Merriam, 1998). A case study can focus on a variety of different things. A case could be an individual, a group, a school, a community (Merriam, 1998), or a case could also include "a program, events, or activities" (Creswell, 2002, p. 485). The bounded systems in my contrasting case studies are my collaboration with the Coalition for Schools [2] in a western city and my collaboration with community members in a small, rural, mountain community to carry out community-based research. The boundaries of these two cases are determined by the people and groups that I collaborate with in the CBR process.

I chose a case study design because it involves "detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information rich in context" (Creswell, 1998, p. 61). Context is a key factor. According to Merriam (1998), in focusing on a particular phenomenon in a case study, it is impossible to separate the phenomenon from its context. However, in this study, it is important that the context is understood as part of the process. As Yin (2003) says, "you would use the case study method because you deliberately wanted to cover contextual conditions-believing that they might be highly pertinent to your phenomenon of study" (p. 13). Thus, using a case study approach allows for the possibility of gaining significant knowledge about the process of conducting community-based research in particular contexts. According to Sanders (1981), "Case studies help us to understand processes of events, projects, and programs and to discover context characteristics that will shed light on an issue or object" (p. 44).

The two case studies each took place over an extended period of time. The first CBR project lasted nine months, and the second CBR project lasted eight months. I worked with my collaborative partners to define research problems and questions, develop research designs, collect data, and analyze data. However, this study does not focus on the data that I collected as part of that CBR work. Instead, this study focuses on the process of the collaborative experience. Since the study focuses primarily on the procedures of conducting community-based research, the study is considered a process study. According to Patton (1990), when carrying out a process study, the "focus is on how something happens rather than on the outcomes or results obtained" (p.94). And, as Merriam (1998) points out, "Case study is a particularly suitable design if you are interested in process" (p.33). Therefore, case study was chosen since it allows for detailed monitoring of the collaborative process (Merriam, 1998).

Types of Case Studies

Stake (2000) delineates three types of case studies: intrinsic, instrumental, and collective. Intrinsic case studies focus on a case that is unusual and is of particular interest to the researcher (Creswell, 1998; Stake, 2000). The intent is not to build theory (Stake, 2000). An instrumental case study is pursued in order to provide insight about a particular issue that may be generalizable (Creswell, 2002). The primary purpose of an instrumental case study is to help advance understanding (Stake, 2000). The collective case study encompasses more than one case "in order to investigate a phenomenon, population, or general condition" (Stake, 2000, p. 437). Since the purpose is to help advance understanding, a collective case study is a grouping of instrumental case studies (Stake, 2000). Using a collective case study approach can allow for the possibility of stronger interpretation and "perhaps better theorizing" (Stake, 2000, p. 437).

Though Stake (2000) uses the terminology "collective case study," this approach is known by other names such as, multiple case studies, cross-case studies, comparative case studies, and contrasting cases (Merriam, 1998; Yin, 2003). With multiple case studies, data are analyzed for insights both within each case and across cases (Merriam, 1998). Yin (2003) points out that multiple cases may be chosen to try to replicate insights that you find within individuals cases or to represent contrasting situations. Regardless of whether the purpose is replication or contrast, multiple case studies are "considered more compelling, and the overall study is therefore regarded as more robust" (Yin, 2003, p. 46).

When this study was first proposed, the original intent was to pursue a single case study of my experience of collaboration in carrying out a community-based research project. After completing my work with the Coalition for Schools, I felt dissatisfied with the experience in that I did not view it to be a success. Instead of focusing on that one experience, I decided to pursue another research option in the small town in which I live in order to have a contrasting experience to write about. It turned out that the project I completed in my small town was more successful, therefore allowing me to present contrasting cases. Since this study seeks to add insight to the field of methodology in CBR, it is important to understand the factors that impact the process of collaboration and the factors that support successful collaborations (Strand et al., 2003a).

Methodology of Community-Based Research

Since the purpose of this study is to explore the process of carrying out CBR, it is important to understand the methodology of community-based research. As mentioned in chapter two, community-based research is not as concerned with methods as it is with methodology (Hills & Mullett, 2000; Strand et al., 2003a). Either quantitative or qualitative methods may be used; the choice depends on what would obtain the most useful data for the community (Greenwood & Levin, 2000). The methodology of CBR is guided by the three principles outlined by Strand et al. (2003a): 1) collaboration, 2) validation of the knowledge of community members and the multiple ways of collecting and distributing information, and 3) "social action and social change for the purpose of achieving social justice" (p. 8). Though community-based research is not limited to specific methods, it does follow the typical stages of research that most traditional academic research would follow: defining the research question, developing a research design, collecting data, analyzing data, and writing up the results. The difference is that the researcher collaborates closely with the community throughout the research process (Strand et al., 2003a). The community is involved in determining the problem and research questions, creating the research design, collecting data, analyzing data, and creating a presentation of findings (Strand et al., 2003a). The researcher also continues to play a role in the final stage by assisting with the enactment of solutions to create change (Greenwood & Levin, 1998).

Regarding knowledge, community-based research seeks to redefine how we conceptualize knowledge in relation to academic research (Strand et al., 2003a). Researchers who conduct CBR projects recognize the important knowledge that community members possess on the subject of their environment and the issues they are dealing with (Cordes, 1998a, No Concrete section, para. 2; Hills & Mullett, 2000, p. 1), what Strand (2000) calls "local knowledge" (p. 88). This knowledge is key throughout the research process. This acceptance of community knowledge does require the researcher to rethink his or her role. As Stringer (1996) says, "The role of the researcher is not that of an expert who does research, but that of a resource person" (p. 22). The expertise that the researcher brings to the equation is still valued; however, the local knowledge that the community brings is recognized as integral to the research process (Strand et al., 2003a).

I have provided a brief overview of the methodology of CBR. However, the purpose of this chapter is to describe the case study methods that I used to carry out this process study. The descriptions of data collection and data analysis that are included in this chapter pertain to the data that were collected and analyzed for the contrasting case studies. A description of the data collection and analysis that was conducted for the CBR projects in each case study will be included in the case descriptions in chapters four and five.

Participants and Setting

Though I came into contact with a variety of people in each case study, my primary research collaborators are the main participants of my study. In the first case study that I carried out, my collaboration with the Coalition for Schools, there were initially two primary collaborators, one of the co-chairs of the Coalition, Marge Bowline, and the director of the Coalition, Lisa Brown. As my collaboration progressed, I worked primarily with Lisa Brown.

The Coalition for Schools is an organization that has been created to support greater academic achievement in an urban school district in a western city. The Coalition has focused its efforts toward a feeder pattern of schools in a quadrant of the city that has a high percentage of students who are eligible for free or reduced lunches, a high percentage of minority students, and a high percentage of English language learners. This feeder pattern includes five elementary schools, two middle schools, and three small high schools that were originally part of one large high school and that are housed in one building. The Coalition is an alliance of non-profit organizations, foundations, parent organizations, universities and colleges, and the school district working together to support achievement in these low performing schools. The Business and Schools United (BSU) organization is the lead partner for the Coalition, and the Coalition is housed at BSU. Marge Bowline is the director of BSU and one of the co-chairs of the Coalition for Schools. She helped to create the Coalition and to procure funding for the organization. The Coalition was a year old when I began my work with them. Lisa Brown was hired to direct the Coalition and replaced the first director. She had been in her position for about six months when I began my work with the Coalition.

The two primary collaborators in my work in a small, western, mountain town are John Brewer and Maria Swenson. The town is a small rural community that has a rapidly growing immigrant population from Mexico, about half of which are Indians from a remote area of the country. Both John Brewer and Maria Swenson work in positions that have direct contact with this population. John Brewer is the director of the literacy program which offers free English courses for English as a Second Language (ESL) students. He is also a member of the city council. Marge Swenson, who is herself a former immigrant from South America, is the coordinator of the diversity office which provides services to immigrants in town. The case descriptions in chapters four and five provide greater detail of the participants and setting.

Data Collection

As I progressed through each case study, I pursued two streams of data collection; the data collected to pursue the CBR projects and data that were collected as part of this case study to study CBR. This section describes only the data that were collected for the case studies. A description of the CBR data that were collected for each collaboration is included in the case descriptions in chapters four and five.

Since the purpose of case study research is to provide an in-depth exploration of the person, program, or process under study, it requires intensive data collection (Merriam, 1998; Yin, 2003) using "multiple forms of data" (Creswell, 2002, p. 486). Data collection for case studies usually focuses on three sources of data: observations, interviews, and documents (Merriam, 1998). Though all qualitative research is to some extent based on the idea of emergent design, this study was truly emergent. Though the research questions that this study proposed to address did not shift throughout the study, the methods of data collection changed to accommodate emerging issues or ideas. According to Patton (1990),

What is certain is that different methods produce quite different information. The challenge is to find out which information is most needed and most useful in a given situation, and then employ those methods best suited to producing the needed information (p. 196).

Though I collected all three forms of data (observations, interviews, and documents) for each study, there are some variations that are detailed in the following sections. Appendix A provides a list showing the dates of meetings and interviews for each case study.

Observations

My primary source of data collection for both case studies was observation. Since I was essentially observing myself as I collaborated with my community partner, all of the observations that I completed for my case study data collection were participant observations. Creswell (2002) defines participant observation as "an observational role adopted by researchers when they take part in activities in the setting they observe" (p. 200). In this role, the researcher "actually engages in activities at the site begin studied" (p. 200). Glesne (1999) describes a continuum of participation that "ranges from mostly observation to mostly participation" (p. 44). Based on this continuum, I was what Glesne (1999) describes as a "full participant" in every interaction relating to my collaborative work with my community partners since I was concurrently a member of the collaborative partnership as well as the researcher investigating the process.

In all of the meetings that I conducted with my community partners in relation to our CBR work, I collected data around those interactions. I utilized Merriam's (1998) checklist of elements to structure my observations: physical setting, participants, activities and interactions, conversation, subtle factors, and my own behavior (pp. 97-98). When working on my first CBR project with the Coalition, I initially only maintained field notes. I was concerned that if I taped our meetings that it would be intrusive and would impact the openness of our conversations (Merriam, 1998). However, as my study progressed I realized that it was difficult to take effective notes while participating in the conversation. I then asked my community partners if I could tape subsequent meetings. After that, most of the meetings I had with Lisa Brown or Marge Bowline were taped and then transcribed. As part of the transcription process, I added notes that clarified or contextualized the dialogue. When I began my work with my community partners in my small town, I asked during the first meeting if I could tape all of our meetings; both John Brewer and Maria Swenson readily agreed. I found that after the use of the tape recorder became routine, they did not seem to be inhibited by being recorded. Using the tape recorder allowed me to collect much more extensive data from my observations of our meetings.

Interviews

As part of the data collection for both case studies, I collected both formal and informal interview data (Patton, 1990). Informal conversational interview questions were interwoven into meetings that we had in relation to ongoing research (Merriam, 1998) and were recorded as part of observation transcriptions. These informal questions typically addressed how the community partner felt the research process was progressing, whether the research was meeting their needs, or addressed immediate questions that arose through the process of continued interaction.

I also collected formal interview data for both case studies; however, I conducted fewer formal interviews with my community partners from the Coalition for Schools. As my work with the Coalition progressed, I sought to determine particular data collection procedures that would address my research questions. Since I was working within a collaborative relationship, part of the consideration when choosing methods was the impact that various methods would have on the relationship with my community partner. In this first case study, as I show in more detail in chapter four, it was challenging to develop a collaborative relationship with my community partners. The lack of trust and communication within this relationship made it difficult to carry out formal interviews discussing our collaboration. I felt that these kinds of interviews would create greater distance between us. Instead I relied primarily on other forms of data collection, observations and documents. However, I did interview both Lisa Brown and Marge Bowline once formally toward the end of our partnership. This interview included questions about the work of the Coalition as well as questions relating to community-based research (Appendix B). I also conducted a follow-up email interview with Lisa Brown after beginning the process of data analysis (Appendix B).

In my collaboration with John Brewer and Maria Swenson in my small town, I was able to develop a much more honest and open relationship from the beginning and felt very comfortable conducting formal interviews about the process. I interviewed John and Maria individually three times throughout our collaboration (Appendix B). I used a semi-structured approach (Rubin & Rubin, 1995) when designing the interview protocols. I prepared questions as a starting point, but allowed the conversation to flow in whatever direction was helpful to providing insight. The first interview focused on getting a sense of their background and experiences with research, their expectations for our research, and strategies for effective communication. The second interview focused on their satisfaction with how things were proceeding, whether they felt we were communicating effectively, and whether they were having the input they wanted to have in the process. The final interview focused primarily on the research questions of the case study: what were the issues that arose, what helped or hindered our collaboration, and what benefits did they receive from the research. I transcribed each interview and added additional notes for interpretation.

As part of the data collection process, I also collected or created a variety of documents including: email communications, a reflective journal, a phone call log, and other items that were provided by my community partners such as newsletters and meeting minutes. As part of my collaboration with the Coalition for Schools, we relied extensively on email for communication since I found it difficult to schedule face-to-face meetings with Marge Bowline and Lisa Brown. These email conversations are an important source of data in compiling a picture of our collaborative experience. I also collected email data during my second case study. However, these email communications focused primarily on setting up logistics. Most important conversations were conducted face-to-face.

Throughout both case studies, I sought to engage in a reflective stance toward my role in the research process. In order to aid my reflection, I maintained a journal in which I transcribed my thinking in relation to my experiences and the perceived experiences of my community partners. Merriam (1998) expresses some concern about using personal documents such as journals as data. Merriam (1998) says,

Personal documents are a reliable source of data concerning a person's attitudes, beliefs, and view of the world. But because they are personal documents, the material is highly subjective in that the writer is the only one to select what he or she considers important to record. Obviously these documents are not representative or necessarily reliable accounts of what actually may have occurred (p. 116).

However, Merriam (1998) does point out that one of the goals of qualitative research is to "reflect the participant's perspective" (p. 116). Since this is a process study, the perceptions of all participants are a key consideration (Patton, 1990). As I am a participant in this study, my perceptions of my experience of the process are important.

The other documents I collected consisted of a phone call log and documents obtained when meeting with my community partners. The phone call log consisted of a brief description of phone calls that were made during the research process. If the conversation was extensive, I tried to recreate the conversation as closely as possible. The phone call log was used primarily during my collaboration with John Brewer and Maria Swenson. I also obtained various documents from my community partners. These mostly included newsletters, meeting minutes, and data collected from previous research. Most of the documents related to the CBR work we were conducting; yet some of the documents also provided information for my case study research.

Data Analysis

After completing both case studies, I had accumulated large volumes of data (more than 500 pages of data for each case study). I organized the data from both cases into what Yin (2003) calls a case study data base . I organized my case study data base in a chronological order so that I could move through the data from the beginning to the end of the process. This allowed me to perceive the progression of the process and my changing views throughout. However, I felt that I needed an additional frame from which to organize the data.

Data analysis was an ongoing process throughout the implementation of each case study. Periodically I composed analytic memos to begin to formulate ideas around particular findings. As each study progressed, I looked for events with common elements within the data that had "issue-relevant meaning" (Creswell, 1998, p. 154) or significance for the study. As I recognized these common elements, I focused on determining whether they continued to be supported throughout the data collection process. Creswell (1998) calls this process categorical aggregation. As categories within the data began to emerge, I began to look for patterns or themes that connected these categories. Based on the literature and the categories and themes that emerged while conducting the cases, I created an analytic framework from which to organize and think about the data.

Analytic Framework

The analytic framework is composed of four categories: community, collaboration, knowledge creation, and change. In creating this framework, I was influenced by Stoecker's (2003) delineation of radical and mainstream CBR. I view each of the four constructs of my framework as existing on a continuum. At one end, there is radical CBR, in the middle, mainstream CBR, and at the other end the professional expert model or consulting (see Figure 1). Based on how I conceptualize this framework, the closer on the continuum the researcher moves toward radical CBR, the greater the potential for change that will benefit the community with which the researcher is collaborating.

When considering the category of community, the goal is to work as closely as possible with the community. Since the ultimate goal of CBR is "social change for social justice" (Stoecker, 2002a, p. 9), the closer the researcher is to the members of the community who are dealing with the problem (Stoecker, 2003), the greater the potential to empower. The community continuum includes grassroots organizations on one end and organizations which do not represent the community or use practices that "disempower the community" (Strand et al., 2003a. p. 73) on the other (see Figure 1). In between are organizations that are a level removed from grassroots organizations but still seek to represent the community democratically, what Strand et al. (2003a) call "midlevel organizations" (p. 74). Conducting CBR projects with midlevel organizations is what Strand et al. (2003a) label " doing CBR in the middle " (p. 73).

Within this analytic framework, I conceptualize collaboration as shared decision making. The goal is that the community should have equal power with the researcher and that decision making should be a shared process throughout (Strand et al., 2003a). When considering this concept within the continuum, shared decision making is at one end of the continuum and at the other end the decisions are made primarily by the researcher (see Figure 1). A companion to collaboration is the concept of participation in knowledge creation. The primary goal in relation to this aspect of the framework is that the community assists in the creation of all knowledge that is generated during the CBR process, thus leading to community empowerment. This point of the framework is based on the principle that the knowledge of community members is valid (Strand et al., 2003a) and integral to creating strong results. At one end of the continuum, the community is involved in all aspects of knowledge creation, at the other end, the researcher controls the creation of knowledge (see Figure 1).

The final point of the analytic framework is change (see Figure 1). If you consider CBR within the radical framework described by Stoecker (2003), the goal for change is "massive structural changes in the distribution of power and resources through far-reaching changes in governmental policy, economic practices, or cultural norms" (p. 36). This goal can be difficult to achieve. More often, CBR work leads to programmatic changes within an organization or other more limited changes (Strand et al., 2003a). However, each change within a community can have a cumulative effect that can lead to broader change. Community-based research that does not involve the community in close collaboration and knowledge creation is less likely to create change that benefits the community.

Analysis of Contrasting Cases

Since this study utilizes contrasting cases, data analysis occurs at two levels: within-case and across cases (Merriam, 1998). Merriam (1998) describes this process:

For the within-case analysis , each case is first treated as a comprehensive case in and of itself. Data are gathered so the researcher can learn as much about the contextual variables as possible that might have a bearing on the case...Once the analysis of each case is completed, cross-case analysis begins. A qualitative, inductive, multicase study seeks to build abstractions across cases (pp. 194-195).

For each case, I analyzed observations, interviews, and documents to develop a description of the case. This description depicts the setting and participants as well as a general chronology of events and provides the reader with an understanding of the particulars of the case (Creswell, 1998). This allows the reader to develop an understanding of the case within the larger context (Creswell, 2002). Then using the analytic framework I developed, I did some within-case analysis and organized the categories that emerged during each study around the four constructs of my analytic framework. This within-case analysis focused on answering the primary research question: What is the process of collaborating with a community partner on a community-based research project? Thus each case analysis consists of "both description and thematic development" (Creswell, 2002, p. 486).

After completing the within-case analysis, I focused on the cross-case analysis to address three of the sub-questions of the study: What kinds of issues arise when collaborating on a community-based research project? What facilitates or hinders the process of collaboration? and, What does the researcher gain through this collaborative process, and what are the benefits for the community? In the cross-case analysis, I used data from both case studies to address these questions. I explored the categories that had emerged throughout each case study and then compared to see if these categories were supported in both cases. I used the categories and themes that emerged during the within-case analysis and the cross-case analysis to determine "naturalistic generalizations" (Creswell, 1998, p. 154) concerning the field of community-based research. Creswell (1998) defines naturalistic generalizations as "generalizations that people can learn from the case either for themselves or for applying it to a population of cases" (p. 154). These naturalistic generalizations address the final question of the study: What can we learn from these experiences to inform the field of CBR?

In order to lend credibility to the findings of my study, I incorporated a variety of validity procedures. The first validity procedure I employed was prolonged engagement in the field (Creswell & Miller, 2000) or what Merriam (1998) calls "long-term observation" (p. 204). I worked on my case study with the Coalition for a period of nine months, and I worked with John and Maria for a period of eight months. During each of these case studies, I had consistent contact with my community partners. Collaborating with my community partners for this length of time allowed me to develop tentative categories in my findings and then follow up on these preliminary findings through observations or interviews (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Therefore, the length of each case study and the consistent contact I had with my community partners lends credibility to my perceptions of this experience.

In addition to prolonged engagement in the field, another important validity procedure I employed, which is integral to case study design, was triangulation (Creswell, 1998). Merriam (1998) defines triangulation as "using multiple investigators, multiple sources of data, or multiple methods to confirm the emerging findings" (p. 204). I employed methodological triangulation (Creswell & Miller, 2000) since I collected three forms of data: observations, interviews, and documents. I also employed multiple sources of data since interviews were conducted with several participants (Creswell & Miller, 2000). I used the process of triangulation to seek convergence in the data and to confirm or disconfirm emerging categories and themes (Creswell & Miller, 2000). As part of this process, I employed another validity strategy, disconfirming evidence (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Categories or themes that emerged in the within-case analysis were compared across cases. If a category did not hold true across cases, it was generally deemed to be unreliable. However, I did utilize what Creswell (1998) calls direct interpretation. In direct interpretation, "the case study researcher looks at a single instance and draws meaning from it without looking for multiple instances" (p. 154). I did recognize that there were single incidents specific to only one case that were significant to the study as well.

Since this case study focused on the study of process, my perceptions were an integral component of the research. However, since I did write interpretations of what I considered to be the perceptions of others, I used member checking to ensure accurate portrayal (Creswell & Miller, 2000). I conducted member checking toward the end of the study so that it would not potentially disrupt the collaborative process. I shared an outline of findings with Lisa Brown with the Coalition and also John Brewer and Maria Swenson in my small town and allowed them the opportunity to provide feedback. Lisa Brown responded to the findings through email and said, "Thanks for sharing [these findings]. I feel it is accurate, and that it was a learning experience for all of us." Maria Swenson also responded to the findings that I shared with she and John. She said, "I looked at [the findings] and it sounds good. I agree with all said." John also said that he thought that the findings looked good.

Finally, I used the validity procedure of thick description when writing about the study in order to give the reader a sense of being there and to capture the essence of the experience (Creswell & Miller, 2000). This is an important feature in case study design that is presented to the reader through the case description. The case description for each contrasting case is included in chapters four and five.

Subjectivity

Another method of creditability I used continuously throughout the research process was researcher reflexivity (Creswell & Miller, 2000). I incorporated researcher reflexivity by constantly questioning my assumptions about what I thought was happening. I sought to maintain a heightened sense of awareness of the biases that I brought to the study and maintained this awareness when adding contextual data to field notes, observations transcriptions, and interview transcriptions, and also when writing journal entries.

Since my perceptions of the research process played a major part in the findings of the study, it was important that I attend to the idea of subjectivity. Peshkin (1988), defines subjectivity as "the quality of the investigator that affects the results of observational investigation" (p. 17). Peshkin (1988) points out that an individual's subjectivity is not something that can be removed, and it is therefore something researchers need to be aware of throughout the research process. Peshkin (1988) identified the various facets of his subjectivities through a series of I's, for example, the "justice-seeking I" (p. 18) and "the community-maintenance I" (p. 18). Though Peshkin does not view subjectivity as necessarily negative, he does feel it is something that researchers need to realize and acknowledge. It was important to examine my own subjectivities throughout the research process so that I was aware of how these subjectivities could influence my interpretations and portrayal of events. As Strand (2000) points out, "the researcher's values, experiences, and personal points of view are as much a part of the research process as those of the people studied, and they should be discussed and acknowledged" (p. 91).

Since the two CBR projects I worked on were in different settings and related to different types of work, I dealt with different subjectivities within each case study. In my work with the Coalition for Schools many of the subjectivities that I brought to that collaboration arose from my past experience as a classroom teacher. I hold the perception that people who do not have experience in a K-12 classroom do not generally understand the issues that classroom teachers have to address. I can be defensive and overly sensitive to criticism that I feel puts the blame on teachers. There were many times during my partnership with the Coalition that I realized this subjectivity was influencing my reactions to statements made by Lisa Brown or Marge Bowline. I also think that this perception at times clouded my view of the knowledge that Lisa brought to the equation. Though I felt that she was very knowledgeable in certain areas, I questioned her understanding of what was actually happening in the schools that are part of the Coalition. I tried to be aware of my bias in this area, though I do not believe I was always successful in controlling how this bias influenced my work with Lisa.

Another bias that I brought to my work with the Coalition was the idea that a successful partnership should not have conflict. I tend to avoid conflict in my personal life. I have difficulty at times recognizing the benefits that conflict can bring. Because of this, I did not communicate as effectively with Lisa as I could have. If had been more willing to risk conflict, we may have been able to develop a more productive working relationship. When I began my work with John Brewer and Maria Swenson, I determined that I would not avoid conflict in this collaboration. When a situation did arise where John and I disagreed, I engaged him, and we talked through the matter. The outcome was that we both were able to see the value of the other's viewpoint.

Though I was able to address the issue of conflict avoidance in my work in John Brewer and Maria Swenson, there were other subjectivities and biases of which I had to be aware. I am liable to have the perception that small towns tend to discriminate against minorities. Since all of the projects that I completed with John and Maria involved the immigrant population in town, I felt at times that I was waiting for someone to say something that would demonstrate their prejudice. At times, I would jump to the conclusion that a particular statement was pejorative. When looking back again at the statement in the context of the full conversation, I realized at times that I may have misinterpreted particular statements. I had to make a concerted effort not to single out statements just because they supported my bias. Nevertheless, this subjectivity did influence whom I chose to partner with during this case study. I had originally planned to include Maria's supervisor, Jennifer Payton, in our collaboration. However, after meeting with Jennifer in October 2003, I decided not to collaborate with her since she made several comments during the meeting that I perceived to be pejorative. If I had decided to work with Jennifer, I may have found that these comments did not represent discrimination but rather a lack of understanding of the impact of language choices.

Two other subjectivities that I brought into my work on both projects related to my experience with previous CBR projects. As I was involved in another community-based research project before working on my dissertation, I already had an initial perception of how the process works. One concern that arose during my previous experience was the issue of communicating with my community partner. I had difficulty developing a research question because the conversations that I shared with my community partner seemed circuitous. We talked around questions during several meetings before I was finally able to gain a sense of what she was hoping to achieve from the research. Though these past experiences with community-based research helped me to anticipate some of the issues that arose, I tried to make sure that the anticipation of issues did not create issues.

When entering into CBR projects, it is important to me that I am doing work that I view as meaningful. Work that is meaningful to me would be research that allows me to consistently interact with members of the community on a personal level. However, I tried to maintain the awareness that the research that I wished to pursue was not necessarily the research that the people I was collaborating with wished to pursue. I continued to remind myself that these discrepancies should not interfere with the development of a research design that was beneficial to my community partner and had the potential to bring about effective change. Since change is the goal of community-based research, I needed to be sure that the change I was assisting to create was the change that the community partner was seeking to make rather than the change that I would have liked to pursue.

Finally, when a researcher carries out a qualitative study, it is also important to attend to the subjectivities that the researcher brings based on gender, age, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. I feel at times that I lack self-awareness of how these orientations impact the way that I view the world. Though I tried to be conscious of these factors while doing my research, I am not sure that I was successful in completely exploring how these subjectivities may have influenced my research. I do feel, however, that my status was an issue in the work that I conducted with the Coalition for Schools. My status in relation to my age (under 40) and my position as a graduate student influenced how my community partners at the Coalition viewed my role, and my socioeconomic background impacted the level of confidence that I felt when working with members of the Coalition. I come from a working class background while my community partners at the Coalition come from backgrounds of higher status both in relation to levels of education and socioeconomic status. At times, I did feel out of place moving through the world of the Coalition in that I often felt that I was from a lower class than many of the people with which I came into contact. I felt most comfortable when interacting with teachers or parents.

In order to minimize the impact of my subjectivities, I closely monitored my feelings as I carried out my research. I looked for situations where I felt uncomfortable or that I wanted to avoid as well as situations where I felt comfortable and that I wanted to continue. When these feelings arose, I realized that I was usually being influenced by subjectivity (Glesne, 1999; Peshkin, 1988). I analyzed my feelings and considered how they related to my subjectivities, then took note of these occurrences in my journal (Peshkin, 1988). Throughout the research process, I was mindful of previously identified subjectivities. I also tried to be aware of newly emerging subjectivities that I may not have considered (Peshkin, 1988) that would potentially influence my research.

Limitations of This Study

This study seeks to compare two cases of conducting community-based research. However, there are differences between the two experiences that may have impacted the findings of the study. In my work with the Coalition, I was a paid employee. Though I was hired with the understanding that I would be a collaborative researcher, I believe my position as an employee impacted how Marge Bowline and Lisa Brown viewed my role, and it also impacted my reactions to various situations. The fact that I was an employee in the first case study when collaborating with the Coalition but in the second case study I was independent, may have created some of the differences that were apparent in the two cases.

Another limitation of this study is that it primarily focuses on the researcher's experience of this process. Though I did interview my community partners, the number of interviews in the first case study was more limited. If I had conducted additional interviews throughout the first case study, I might have additional information to support or contradict some of my observations. However, the purpose of this study is to provide insight into this process for practitioners in the field of community-based research, thus it is beneficial to explore the researcher's perspective of these two experiences.

The final limitation of this study relates to the timeline of the completion of the study. Since I only recently finalized data collection in relation to my work with John Brewer and Maria Swenson, I am not really able to make an assessment at this point as to whether any of the work we completed will affect change. My work with the Coalition was completed almost a year ago so it easier to assess the impact of that work. However, even with the first case study, there is a possibility that some of the work that I completed could eventually lead to change. If I were to conduct a long-term case study in relation to either of these collaborations, it would be more feasible to assess the impact of our work.

This chapter provided an overview to the case study methods that were used to conduct this study. I detailed a rationale for choosing this method, then described data collection, analysis, and procedures in relation to validity. Since this is a process study of the methodology of CBR, I also described the foundations of this methodology. The next three chapters will present the findings of this study. Chapters four and five provide a synopsis of the within-case analysis of each of the contrasting cases. I begin each chapter with a chronological overview of the major events of the case and then present within-case analysis organized around the four concepts of my analytic framework. In chapter six, I present the findings from the cross-case analysis that address the sub-questions of the study and identify the "naturalistic generalizations" (Creswell, 1998, p. 154) that emerged from the study with recommendations for further research.

Single Case Research Design

First Online: 10 November 2021

Cite this chapter

Stefan Hunziker 3 &
Michael Blankenagel 3

3840 Accesses

3 Citations

This chapter addresses the peculiarities, characteristics, and major fallacies of single case research designs. A single case study research design is a collective term for an in-depth analysis of a small non-random sample. The focus on this design is on in-depth. This characteristic distinguishes the case study research from other research designs that understand the individual case as a rather insignificant and interchangeable aspect of a population or sample. Also, researchers find relevant information on how to write a single case research design paper and learn about typical methodologies used for this research design. The chapter closes with referring to overlapping and adjacent research designs.

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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Baškarada, S. (2014). Qualitative case studies guidelines. The Qualitative Report, 19 (40), 1–25.

Google Scholar

Berg, B., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Pearson.

Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press, 592.

Burns, R. B. (2000). Introduction to research methods. United States of America.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Darke, P., Shanks, G., & Broadbent, M. (1998). Successfully completing case study research: Combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism. Inform Syst J, 8 (4), 273–289.

Article Google Scholar

Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: Guidelines for qualitative inquiry . Academic Press.

Dick, B. (2005). Grounded theory: A thumbnail sketch. Retrieved 11 June 2021 from http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/grounded.html .

Dooley, L. M. (2002). Case study research and theory building. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4 (3), 335–354.

Edmonds, W. A., & Kennedy, T. D. (2012). An applied reference guide to research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Edmondson, A. & McManus, S. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. The Academy of Management Review, 32 (4), 1155–1179.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532–550.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Sociology Press.

Flynn, B. B., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R. G., Bates, K. A., & Flynn, E. J. (1990). Empirical research methods in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 9 (2), 250–284.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (2), 219–245.

General Accounting Office (1990). Case study evaluations. Retrieved May 15, 2021, from https://www.gao.gov/assets/pemd-10.1.9.pdf .

Gomm, R. (2000). Case study method. Key issues, key texts . SAGE.

Halaweh, M. (2012). Integration of grounded theory and case study: An exemplary application from e-commerce security perception research. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 13 (1).

Hancock, D., & Algozzine, B. (2016). Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.

Hekkala, R. (2007). Grounded theory—the two faces of the methodology and their manifestation in IS research. In Proceedings of the 30th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia IRIS, 11–14 August, Tampere, Finland (pp. 1–12).

Hyett, N., Kenny, A., & Dickson-Swift, V. (2014). Methodology or method? A critical review of qualitative case study reports. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 9 , 23606.

Keating, P. J. (1995). A framework for classifying and evaluating the theoretical contributions of case research in management accounting. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 7 , 66.

Levy, J. S. (2008). Case studies: Types, designs, and logics of inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25 (1), 1–18.

Meyer, J.-A., & Kittel-Wegner, E. (2002). Die Fallstudie in der betriebswirtschaftlichen Forschung und Lehre . Stiftungslehrstuhl für ABWL, insb. kleine und mittlere Unternehmen, Universität.

Mitchell, J. C. (1983). Case and situation analysis. The Sociological Review, 31 (2), 187–211.

Ng, Y. N. K. & Hase, S. (2008). Grounded suggestions for doing a grounded theory business research. Electronic Journal on Business Research Methods, 6 (2).

Ng. (2005). A principal-distributor collaboration moden in the crane industry. Ph.D. Thesis, Graduate College of Management, Southern Cross University, Australia.

Ridder, H.-G. (2016). Case study research. Approaches, methods, contribution to theory. Sozialwissenschaftliche Forschungsmethoden (vol. 12). Rainer Hampp Verlag.

Ridder, H.-G. (2017). The theory contribution of case study research designs. Business Research, 10 (2), 281–305.

Maoz, Z. (2002). Case study methodology in international studies: from storytelling to hypothesis testing. In F. P. Harvey & M. Brecher (Eds.). Evaluating methodology in international studies . University of Michigan Press.

May, T. (2011). Social research: Issues, methods and process . Open University Press/Mc.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis .

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. (2012). Qualitative analysis techniques for the review of the literature. Qualitative Report, 17 (56).

Piekkari, R., Welch, C., & Paavilainen, E. (2009). The case study as disciplinary convention. Organizational Research Methods, 12 (3), 567–589.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research . Sage.

Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.), ed. N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (pp. 443–466).

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques . Sage publications.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory . Sage.

Tight, M. (2003). Researching higher education . Society for Research into Higher Education; Open University Press.

Tight, M. (2010). The curious case of case study: A viewpoint. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13 (4), 329–339.

Walsham, G. (2006). Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems, 15 (3), 320–330.

Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. (2011). Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (5), 740–762.

Woods, M. (2009). A contingency theory perspective on the risk management control system within Birmingham City Council. Management Accounting Research, 20 (1), 69–81.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Discovering the future of the case study. Method in evaluation research. American Journal of Evaluation, 15 (3), 283–290.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research. Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Wirtschaft/IFZ – Campus Zug-Rotkreuz, Hochschule Luzern, Zug-Rotkreuz, Zug , Switzerland

Stefan Hunziker & Michael Blankenagel

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Hunziker .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Hunziker, S., Blankenagel, M. (2021). Single Case Research Design. In: Research Design in Business and Management. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34357-6_8

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34357-6_8

Published : 10 November 2021

Publisher Name : Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

Print ISBN : 978-3-658-34356-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-658-34357-6

eBook Packages : Business and Economics (German Language)

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

Publications
Account settings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definitions of qualitative case study research

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

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

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

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

Current methodological issues in qualitative case study research

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

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

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

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

Assessment of rigour

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

Framework for assessing quality in qualitative case study research.

Adapted from Stake ( 1995 , p. 131).

Study design

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

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

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

Search strategy

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

Outcomes of search of qualitative methods journals.

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

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

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

Case study methodology or method

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

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

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

Case study of something particular and case selection

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

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

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

Contextually bound case study

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

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

Article synopsis of case study research using Stake's tradition

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

Article synopsis of case study research using Yin's tradition

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

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

Researcher and case interactions and triangulation

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

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

Study design inconsistent with methodology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limitations of the review

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

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

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

Conflict of interest and funding

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

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

IMAGES

PPT
Case Study What is case study An investigation
PPT
(PDF) Peer researcher facilitators, barriers, & epistemology: A bounded
PPT
Case Study Embedded Units Design. Within the context of the bounded

VIDEO

5.5 Branch and Bound
L 1. 4 relation between Boundedness and continuity
Bounded Metric space
Case Study
Case Study of Digital Signage Management System
L-2.2: Critical Section

COMMENTS

Case studies as bounded systems
974943. 1099211. A topic in research methodology Case study is a methodology widely used in educational research. Case studies vary across scales, but each case needs to be bounded. Case study tends to be naturalistic as normally the case is embedded within a context from which it cannot be removed for independent (laboratory / clinical) study.
Chapter 3: Research Methods
Some researchers think of case study as the object to be studied (Stake, 2000), while others define case study as a process of investigation (Creswell, 2002). Creswell defines case study as "an in-depth exploration of a bounded system (e.g., an activity, event, process, or individuals) based on extensive data collection" (p. 485).
Redefining Case Study
A case study is a problem to be studied, which will reveal an in-depth understanding of a "case" or bounded system, which involves understanding an event, activity, process, or one or more individuals. (Creswell, 2002, p. 61) Eckstein's (2002) definition offers a technical explanation in which the case is a focused object of
Distinguishing case study as a research method from case reports as a
Case study research is defined as a qualitative approach in which the investigator explores a real-life, contemporary bounded system (a case) or multiple bound systems (cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information, and reports a case description and case themes.
PDF Case Study
According to this definition, case studies focus on an "individual unit," what Robert Stake (2008, pp. 119-120) calls a "functioning specific" or "bounded sys-tem." The decisive factor in defining a study as a case study is the choice of the individual unit of study and the setting of its boundaries, its "casing" to use
PDF Comparing the Five Approaches
an ethnography. An in-depth study of a bounded system or a case (or several cases) becomes a case study. The general structures of the written report may be used in designing a journal-article-length study. However, because of the numerous steps in each, they also have applicability as chapters of a dissertation or a book-length work.
PDF Kurt Schoch I
The chapter begins with a definition . of case study research and a description of its origins and philosophical underpinnings. I share dis-cipline-specific applications of case study methods and describe the appropriate research questions addressed by case studies. I follow this description with methods considerations, including case study
Planning Qualitative Research: Design and Decision Making for New
Several research topics and questions indicate a case study as an appropriate approach. The key criterion is the bounded system, so any research situation where the bounded system is central is a candidate for case study. A case study can be a complete research project in itself, such as in the study of a particular organization, community, or ...
Case Study
1.1 Introduction. The main aim of the chapter is to discuss the case study method. We shall begin by confronting its definition. It is quite a challenge, as researchers representing various paradigms embark on this type of research project. These paradigms define the way we perceive the explored reality, our chances of understanding/cognizing ...
Case Study Research: Foundations and Methodological Orientations
definition that collates the hallmarks of key ... bounded system (a case) or multiple b ounded systems (cases ... A case study is a research method that involves an in-depth examination and ...
Case Study Research
Thus, an in-depth study of a bounded system, a single case, or multiple cases may be best treated as a case study. ... This article has taken Yin's (1989) definition of the case study as a research strategy as a starting point and argued that the choice of the case study should be guided by the research question(s). In the illustrative study ...
PDF Thomas W. Lauer
A case study is an in-depth study of the case or of a group of. cases, the bounded system. The case is bounded by specifying time and place. center around an individual or group(s) of individuals. The case study should. documents, reports, and archival material. In describing the case, it should be. put in context.
Single Case Research Design
As Creswell states, this approach ''explores a real-life, contemporary bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information […] and reports a case description and case themes'' (p. 97). Thus, case study research deserves this label ...
The case study approach
A case study is a research approach that is used to generate an in-depth, multi-faceted understanding of a complex issue in its real-life context. It is an established research design that is used extensively in a wide variety of disciplines, particularly in the social sciences. A case study can be defined in a variety of ways (Table.
A Beginner's Guide to Applied Educational Research using ...
bounded system … or multiple bounded systems … through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information" (Creswell, 2013, p. 97). Common to all iterations is the understanding that case study is a way to investigate an issue in depth. Accordingly, case study research is an appropriate
PDF Case Study Research Defined
the definition of a bounded system. In case study research, a bounded system refers to the delimited scope or boundaries of the case being studied. A bounded system can refer to a single ...
Planning Qualitative Research: Design and Decision Making for New
Several research topics and questions indicate a case study as an appropriate approach. The key criterion is the bounded system, so any research situation where the bounded system is central is a candidate for case study. A case study can be a complete research project in itself, such as in the study of a particular organization, community, or ...
(PDF) Case Study Research Defined [White Paper]
A case study is a methodological. research approach used to generate. an in-depth understanding of a. contemporary issue or phenomenon in a. bounded system. Case study research. requires in-depth ...
PDF What is Case Study 1 Research?
Triangulation is an important concept in case study research because an investigation of the phenomenon from different perspectives provides robust foundations for the findings and supports arguments for its contribution to knowledge. Case study research also enables a phenomenon to be studied over a period of time, that is, a longitudinal study.
Methodology or method? A critical review of qualitative case study
Case studies are designed to suit the case and research question and published case studies demonstrate wide diversity in study design. There are two popular case study approaches in qualitative research. The first, proposed by Stake ( 1995) and Merriam ( 2009 ), is situated in a social constructivist paradigm, whereas the second, by Yin ( 2012 ...
Redefining Case Study
Eckstein's (2002) definition offers a technical explanation in which the case is a focused object of interest, a relevant variable. For example, a possible case study or phenomenon under investigation could be electoral systems, where the pertinent variable is the general parliamentary election and the single measure of the pertinent variable is the outcome of six such elections in Britain.
What Is a Workplace? Principles for Bounding Case Studies of Genres
Case study research is a qualitative approach in which the investigator explores a real-life, contemporary bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information (e.g., observations, interviews, audiovisual material, and documents or reports ...
Case Study Methodology of Qualitative Research: Key Attributes and
A case study is one of the most commonly used methodologies of social research. This article attempts to look into the various dimensions of a case study research strategy, the different epistemological strands which determine the particular case study type and approach adopted in the field, discusses the factors which can enhance the effectiveness of a case study research, and the debate ...