case study qualitative forschung

Kostenlose Rechtschreibprüfung

Kostenlose plagiatsprüfung, korrektur deiner abschlussarbeit.

• Wissensdatenbank

Eine Fallstudie in 5 Schritten durchführen

Veröffentlicht am 30. Januar 2019 von Franziska Pfeiffer . Aktualisiert am 20. November 2023.

Eine Fallstudie, auch unter dem englischen Begriff ‚Case Study‘ bekannt, ist eine qualitative Forschungsmethode , die du für deine Bachelorarbeit bzw. Masterarbeit verwenden kannst.

Bei der Fallstudie gehst du empirisch vor und beleuchtest einen Fall aus verschiedenen Blickwinkeln.

Scribbrs kostenlose Rechtschreibprüfung

Fehler kostenlos beheben

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Was ist eine fallstudie, so führst du eine fallstudie durch, beispiel für eine fallstudie in der abschlussarbeit, vorteile einer fallstudie, häufig gestellte fragen.

Bei einer Fallstudie konzentrierst du dich auf die Analyse eines Einzelfalls und verknüpfst diesen mit einer bestehenden Theorie, die du in deiner Literaturrecherche herausfilterst. Ziel ist es, den Fall zu verstehen, zu erklären und offene Fragen zu klären.

Kostenlos auf Plagiate prüfen.

Die Fallstudie gehört zu den simpleren Forschungsmethoden , doch sie ist mit mindestens genauso viel Recherche verbunden wie bspw. die Umfrage oder das Experteninterview .

In den folgenden 5 Schritten, die wir dir bereits im Beispiel gezeigt haben, erklären wir dir ausführlich, wie du in deiner Fallstudie vorgehen kannst:

• Forschungsziel festlegen
• Fall auswählen
• Passende Literatur & Theorie finden
• Fall schildern
• Fall analysieren

1. Forschungsziel festlegen

Als Erstes gilt es, deine Forschungsfrage zu formulieren , damit du genau weißt, was du anhand der Fallstudie untersuchen möchtest.

Da es sich bei der Fallstudie um qualitative Forschung handelt, eignen sich Wie- oder Warum-Fragen am besten für die Analyse.

2. Fall auswählen

Die Auswahl deines Falls sollte gut überlegt sein. Denn dieser sollte Relevanz für deine Forschungsfrage haben und nicht zufällig ausgewählt sein.

Infrage kommen dafür Personen , Organisationen , Orte , Ereignisse oder Phänomene .

Diese Eigenschaften machen ein gutes Fallbeispiel aus:

• Es handelt sich um ein ungewöhnliches oder atypisches Beispiel.
• Der Fall gewährt neue oder ungeahnte Einblicke in ein Problem.
• Bestehende Annahmen werden durch den Fall kritisch hinterfragt.
• Der Fall stellt neue Lösungsansätze für ein Problem dar.
• Durch den Fall eröffnen sich neue Richtungen für zukünftige Forschung.

3. Passende Literatur & Theorie finden

Nachdem deine Forschungsfrage und der Fall, den du untersuchen möchtest feststehen, musst du nun noch die Verbindung zur Literatur schaffen.

Dafür führst du eine Literaturrecherche durch und suchst dir passende Theorien zu deinem Thema aus, auf die du dich in der Analyse deines Falls beziehen kannst. Du gehst deduktiv vor, wenn du deine Fallstudie mit bereits bestehender Literatur zu deinem Thema vergleichst.

4. Fall schildern

Nach durchgeführter Literaturrecherche kannst du dich an die Beschreibung deiner Fallstudie machen. Du schilderst deinen Fall und beschreibst alle relevanten Einzelheiten. Handelt es sich um ein Ereignis, bietet es sich an, eine Zeitleiste des Falls zu erstellen.

Schildere umfassende Details, die dein Fallbeispiel ausmachen und von anderen möglichen Fällen im Bereich deiner Forschungsfrage abheben.

5. Fall analysieren

Der letzte Teil ist die Analyse des Falls. Du erklärst, warum dieses Beispiel relevant für deine Forschung ist und wie sich damit deine Forschungsfrage beantworten lässt.

Du untersuchst, was hinter dem Fall steckt und welche Verknüpfungen du zur Literatur und zu bestehenden Theorien herstellen kannst, die du bei deiner Literaturrecherche herausgefiltert hast.

Fallstudie analysieren

Es ist ebenfalls möglich, die Fallstudie mit anderen wissenschaftlichen Methoden wie Experteninterviews oder Gruppendiskussionen zu verbinden.

Wenn du qualitative und quantitative Forschung kombinierst, liegt ein Mixed-Methods-Ansatz vor. Wenn du mehrere Theorien, Methoden oder Forschende in deine Forschung einbeziehen möchtest, kannst du als Methodik die Triangulation wählen.

Durch verschiedene Perspektiven erhältst du zusätzliche Informationen und Meinungen, die du auf deine Fallstudie anwenden kannst. Auf diese Weise kannst du dir ein detaillierteres Bild deines Falls machen.

Das Thema deiner Abschlussarbeit stammt aus dem Bereich Marketing. Du entscheidest dich, den Zusammenhang zwischen dem Kaufverhalten der Menschen und gezielt eingesetzter Marketingstrategien zu untersuchen. Für deine Fallstudie entscheidest du dich für die aktuelle Werbekampagne des neuen iPhones.

Du untersuchst in deiner Fallstudie also ein aktuelles Phänomen aus der Realität. Passend zu deiner Fallstudie führst du eine Literaturrecherche durch, um deine Fallstudie deduktiv mit passenden Theorien zum Kaufverhalten und Marketingstrategien verbinden zu können.

Bevor du aber die Ergebnisse aus deiner Literaturrecherche auf deine Fallstudie anwenden kannst, musst du deinen ausgewählten Fall genau beschreiben . Der letzte Schritt ist es, deinen Fall genau zu analysieren .

Die Verwendung einer Fallstudie bzw. Case Study als Methode für deine Abschlussarbeit bringt einige Vorteile mit sich.

Vorteile einer Fallstudie:

• Du hast die Möglichkeit, einen Fall aus mehreren Perspektiven zu analysieren.
• Der Fall hat einen Bezug zum echten Leben und deine Forschung ist somit realitätsnah.
• Eine Fallstudie ist mit deutlich weniger organisatorischem Aufwand als z. B. eine Umfrage verbunden.
• Zuvor unbekannte Probleme oder Sachverhalte können durch Fallstudien aufgedeckt werden.

Möchtest du eine fehlerfreie Arbeit abgeben?

Mit einem Lektorat helfen wir dir, deine Abschlussarbeit zu perfektionieren.

Neugierig? Bewege den Regler von links nach rechts!

Zu deiner Korrektur

Die Fallstudie ist eine empirische Forschungsmethode, die für die Abschlussarbeit verwendet werden kann. Du schaust dir ein bestimmtes Fallbeispiel aus verschiedenen Blickwinkeln an.

Eine Fallstudie , im Englischen ‚Case Study‘ genannt, ist eine qualitative Forschungsmethode, die häufig für Bachelorarbeiten und Masterarbeiten verwendet wird.

Mit einer Fallstudie beleuchtest du einen Fall aus verschiedenen Blickwinkeln. Dieser Fall kann beispielsweise eine Organisation, eine Person, ein Ort oder ein Ereignis sein und sollte neue Einblicke in dein Forschungsthema eröffnen.

Die Begriffe ‚Fallstudie‘ und ‚Case Study‘ können synonym verwendet werden. ‚Case Study‘ ist der englische Begriff für die Fallstudie.

Das Ziel einer Fallstudie ist es, den Fall zu verstehen, zu erklären und offene Fragen zu lösen. Dazu konzentrierst du dich auf die Analyse eines Einzelfalls und verknüpfst diesen mit bestehenden Theorien, die du in deiner Literaturrecherche herausfilterst.

Eine Fallstudie kannst du in 5 Schritten durchführen:

Diesen Scribbr-Artikel zitieren

Wenn du diese Quelle zitieren möchtest, kannst du die Quellenangabe kopieren und einfügen oder auf die Schaltfläche „Diesen Artikel zitieren“ klicken, um die Quellenangabe automatisch zu unserem kostenlosen Zitier-Generator hinzuzufügen.

Pfeiffer, F. (2023, 20. November). Eine Fallstudie in 5 Schritten durchführen. Scribbr. Abgerufen am 29. August 2024, von https://www.scribbr.de/methodik/fallstudie/

War dieser Artikel hilfreich?

Franziska Pfeiffer

Das hat anderen studierenden noch gefallen, qualitative forschung und quantitative forschung, empirische forschung für die abschlussarbeit durchführen, triangulation als methode für deine forschung, aus versehen plagiiert finde kostenlos heraus.

Forschungsmethode Fallstudien (Case Studies)

Fallstudien als Forschungsmethode

Fallstudien sind eine der beliebtesten (qualitativen) Forschungsmethoden. Wissenschaftliche Artikel, die Theorien aus Fallstudien entwickeln, gehören zu den am häufigsten zitierten Werken in Fachzeitschriften. Allerdings besteht in der Literatur ein gewisser Dissens hinsichtlich der Eignung von Fallstudien als Methode in der akademischen und vor allem in der wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Forschung.

In diesem Beitrag geht es daher darum, einen Überblick über die Forschungsmethode Fallstudie (Case Study) und deren Nutzen und  Einsatzgebiete bereitzustellen. Insbesondere soll die Frage beantwortet werden, inwieweit Fallstudien für eine Bachelorarbeit oder Masterarbeit geeignet sein können.

Was sind Fallstudien?

Ein Fall (Case) ist ein zeitgenössisches Phänomen wie z.B. das Entscheidungsverhalten einer Person bzw. eines Unternehmers (Entrepreneurs) oder aber der Internationalisierungsprozess eines Unternehmen, im Rahmen gegebener (angenommener) Bedingungen. Oftmals ist dabei der Zusammenhang zwischen Case und Kontext nicht klar bzw. nicht alle Informationen sind von Beginn an zugänglich.

Aus diesem Grund ist die Epistemologie, d.h. die Frage nach den Voraussetzungen für eine Erkenntnis, ein wichtiger Aspekt. Die Fallstudienforschung basiert auf einer positivistischen Epistemologie. Das bedeutet, die daraus gewonnenen Erkenntnisse und Ergebnisse müssen wahrnehmbar und überprüfbar sein.

Einsatz von Fallstudien

Fallstudien haben eine lange sozialwissenschaftliche Tradition und vielfältige Anwendungsgebiete, insbesondere im Bereich der Managementlehre und der Medizin.

In der Lehre dienen sie der Wissensvermittlung sowie der Herangehensweise an komplexe Problemstellungen, die oft der Wirtschaftspraxis entnommen werden. Diese Form der Wissensvermittlung geht auf die Harvard Business School zurück. Sie wird daher auch als die „Harvard Methode“ bezeichnet, die besonders in der Betriebswirtschaftslehre Anwendung findet. Fast alle MBA-Programme verwenden Case Studies, um bestimmte betriebswirtschaftschaftliche bzw. managementbezogene Problemstellungen zu veranschaulichen, zu analysieren und Lösungen zu erarbeiten.

Aber auch in der Medizin finden Fallstudien Verwendung, wo einheitliche Verfahrensstandards für spezifische Diagnosebilder zu erarbeiten sind.

Fallstudien können aber auch der Theoriebildung dienen. In dieser Hinsicht stellt jede Case Study ein einzigartiges Experiment dar. Mehrere Cases dienen, ähnlich einer Reihe von Experimenten unter laborartigen Bedingungen, der Entwicklung einer belastbaren, reproduzierbaren oder erweiterbaren Theorie. Im Gegensatz zu einem Laborexperiment, das das Phänomen vom Kontext trennt, untersucht die Case Study die Beziehungen zwischen Phänomen und real gegebenem Kontext. Theoriebildung mittels Fallstudien bezieht also in einer iterativen Vorgehensweise reale Daten, bestehende Theorien und somit vorhandene wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse explizit mit ein. Hier werden Annahmen z.B. über das Verhalten von Wirtschaftssubjekten oder Aggregaten getroffen und in mathematischen Modellgleichungen formuliert. Auf analytischem Wege lassen sich daraus Erkenntnisse ableiten. Dabei geht es nicht darum, die Theorie auch zu testen. Dafür werden in der Regel quantitative Methoden herangezogen. Rein induktive Methoden kommen beim Data Mining bzw Big Data zum Einsatz. Hier wird mittels aufwendiger statistischer Verfahren nach Mustern in Datenbanken oder Data Warehouses gesucht wird, um zu einem Erkenntnisfortschritt zu gelangen.

Wann ist der Einsatz von Fallstudien angebracht?

Die Wahl der Forschungsmethode hängt wesentlich von den aufgestellten Forschungsfragen ab. Fallstudien können dann geeignet sein, wenn es darum geht, Forschungsfragen zu untersuchen, deren Intention es ist, etwas zu explorieren, etwas zu beschreiben oder das „Wie“ und „Warum“ eines Phänomens zu erklären. Dies betrifft beispielsweise ein Unternehmen, einen Entrepreneur oder eine Gruppe von Subjekten („wer“), deren Verhalten unter möglichst realen Bedingungen analysiert werden soll.

Hierbei können qualitative Methoden eingesetzt werden, um mögliche Annahmen bzw. Antworten zu formulieren (in Form von Hypothesen / Thesen) und quantitative Methoden, um diese zu verifizieren oder zu falsifizieren.

Welchen Beitrag zum Erkenntnisgewinn können Fallstudien liefern?

Entscheidungsträger benötigen ein Verständnis dafür, welche Auswirkungen ihre Entscheidung auf die entsprechenden Subjekte, die realen Gegebenheiten oder auf eine konkrete Situation hat. Sie brauchen Klarheit darüber, wie die Beziehung zwischen den abhängigen und unabhängigen Variablen und den dahinter liegenden Begründungen sind (wie und warum passiert etwas wo durch wen). Durch die offene und methodisch flexible Herangehensweise kann die Fallstudienforschung Erkenntnisse in Theorie und Praxis generieren.

Wie kann die Qualität der Fallstudienforschung eingeschätzt werden?

Fallstudienforschung muss einem striktem Procedere und den wissenschaftlich üblichen strengen Gütekriterien genügen. Eine qualitativ hochwertige Fallstudie hat – wie jede andere Untersuchungsmethode auch – daher strengen Anforderungen an Objektivität, Validität, Reliabilität und Utilitarität zu entsprechen.

Die Überprüfung dieser Kriterien sollte nicht erst im Nachhinein erfolgen, sondern bereits bei der Auswahl und dem Design der Fallstudie berücksichtigt werden. Während es bei der Validität um die Frage geht, ob tatsächlich diejenigen Merkmale ermittelt wurden, welche auch erfasst werden sollten, bezieht sich die Reliabilität auf die Exaktheit der Messungen und des definierten Vorgehens. Besonders wichtig ist die Konsistenzprüfung, welche darlegt, dass eine Replikation des Vorgehens zum gleichen Ergebnis führen würde.

Yin (2009) unterteilt die Validität zusätzlich in drei Unterkategorien: Konstruktvalidität, Interne Validität sowie Externe Validität.

Konstruktvalidität: darunter versteht man die richtige Auswahl der Untersuchungsinstrumente. Dies ist bei der Fallstudienforschung deshalb wichtig, da der Untersuchende dazu geneigt sein könnte, bei der Datensammlung allzu subjektiv vorzugehen, obwohl für die Fragestellung die Benutzung korrekter (objektiver) operativer Messungen immanent wichtig ist. Aus diesem Grund sollte man Daten und Informationen aus möglichst vielen unterschiedlichen Quellen recherchieren, um die Konstruktvalidität sicherzustellen.

Interne Validität: sie stellt das wichtigste Gütekriterium bei qualitativen und quantitativen Untersuchungen dar und bezieht sich auf die Gültigkeit der aufgestellten Kausalzusammenhänge, ihre intersubjektive Überprüfbarkeit und die Zuverlässigkeit. Damit wird gewährleistet, dass die Untersuchungsbedingungen auch zu den gewonnenen Ergebnissen führen. Deshalb sollten bei der Datenanalyse kausale Beziehungen zwischen den einzelnen Variablen hergestellt und zudem eine saubere Argumentationskette erarbeitet werden.

Externe Validität: je nachdem, ob die Ergebnisse auch außerhalb des Fallkontextes verallgemeinerbar oder übertragbar sind, kann von einer externen Validität gesprochen werden. Eine solche Generalisierbarkeit bezieht sich auf theoretische Ableitungen bzw. eine analytische Generalisierbarkeit. Gerade im Fall von multiplen Fallbeispielen kann dies umso besser überprüft werden, je mehr Personen, Fälle oder Situationen Gegenstand der Untersuchung sind (Replication Logic).

Reliabilität: darunter versteht man die Exaktheit des Vorgehens sowie der Messung im Rahmen einer Konsistenzprüfung, die optimalerweise den Nachweis erbringt, dass eine Wiederholung der Untersuchung zu denselben Ergebnissen führen würde. Ein wichtiges Instrument hierfür ist eine Dokumentation in Form eines Protokolls, welches einen Überblick über das Gesamtprojekt, den Untersuchungsablauf, die Forschungsfragen sowie über die Richtlinien des Fallreports liefert. Dazu gehört auch die erforderliche Archivierung von Primär- und Sekundärdaten in einer Datenbank.

Je stärker eine Fallstudie diesen wissenschaftlichen Gütekriterien entspricht, desto höher kann deren Qualität eingeordnet werden.

Fallstudien als „Empirie“ für die Bachelorarbeit oder Masterthesis?

Die Fallstudie gilt durchaus als empirische Methode, die im Rahmen einer Abschlussarbeit verwendet werden kann. Sie dient dazu, ein bestimmtes Problem, das in der Arbeit behandelt wird, aus verschiedenen Blickwinkel zu betrachten. Dabei wird ein Einzelfall analysiert,  mittels definierter Leitfragen im Hinblick auf das „Wie“ und „Warum“ bestimmter Ereignisse und Entwicklungen. Es muss  also klar sein, unter welchen fachlichen Aspekten die Case Study analysiert wird und woher die Daten für den Fall kommen. Die Daten können öffentlich zugänglich sein (z.B. Presse, Jahresberichte o.ä.) oder zumindest für den Studierenden, der ggfs. interne Daten anonymisieren könnte, falls gefordert.

Schlussfolgerung

Insgesamt betrachtet stellen Fallstudien eine verhältnismäßig aufwendige Forschungsmethode dar, insbesondere im Vergleich zu quantitativen Methoden. Sie ist zeit- und personalintensiv und stellt besondere und interdisziplinäre Anforderungen an den Forschenden. Zwar muss sich die Fallstudienforschung immer wieder den Vorwurf einer allzu großen Subjektivität vermeintlich objektiver Methoden gefallen lassen. Gegen diesen Vorwurf sind im übrigen aber auch quantitative Methoden nicht vollständig gefeit. Qualitative Forschungsmethoden wie die hier behandelte Fallstudienforschung können jedoch als das betrachtet werden, was sie tatsächlich ist: eine sinnvolle Ergänzung und Gegenstück zu (ökonomischen) Modellen und quantitativer Forschung. Fallstudien weisen Vorteile auf, denen es bei anderen Methoden mangelt. Sie sind daher nicht zwangsläufig Vorarbeiten oder vorangehende Pretests für quantitative Forschungsdesigns, vielmehr können quantitative Erhebungen umgekehrt Pretest für eine oder Bestandteil einer Fallstudie sein.

Fallstudien erlauben komplexe Zusammenhänge in ihrem Gesamtkontext wahrzunehmen. Sie können daher als Forschungsmethode ein transparentes, redliches und rigoroses Forschungsinstrument darstellen und wertvolle Forschungsbeiträge liefern.

Eher in Ausnahmefällen kommen sie in Abschlussarbeiten wie einer Bachelorarbeit oder Masterarbeit zum Einsatz, können dann aber umso aufschlussreichere Erkenntnisse liefern. Zwar werden in solchen Abschlussarbeiten einzelne Fallbeispiele gerne als Fallstudien bezeichnet, sind es im engeren Sinne aber nicht bzw. erfüllen nicht die o.a. Voraussetzungen und Merkmale.

Wenn Sie Fragen dazu haben, wenden Sie sich gerne an uns!

Göthlich, S. E. (2003): Fallstudien als Forschungsmethode: Plädoyer für einen Methodenpluralismus in der deutschen betriebswirtschaftlichen Forschung, Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel, No. 578, Universität Kiel, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre

YIN, R. K. (2009): Case study Research. 5. Auflage. Sage Publications

• Help & FAQ

Case study research: Foundations and methodological orientations

Research output : Contribution to journal › Article › Other › peer-review

Over the last forty years, case study research has undergone substantial methodological development. This evolution has resulted in a pragmatic, flexible research approach, capable of providing comprehensive in-depth understanding of a diverse range of issues across a number of disciplines. Change and progress have stemmed from parallel influences of historical transformations in approaches to research and individual researcher’s preferences, perspectives, and interpretations of this design. Researchers who have contributed to the development of case study research come from diverse disciplines with different philosophical perspectives, resulting in a variety of definitions and approaches. For the researcher new to using case study, such variety can create a confusing platform for its application. In this article, we explore the evolution of case study research, discuss methodological variations, and summarize key elements with the aim of providing guidance on the available options for researchers wanting to use case study in their work.

• Methodology
• Nursing research
• Qualitative
• Research design

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus

T1 - Case study research

T2 - Foundations and methodological orientations

AU - Harrison, Helena

AU - Birks, Melanie

AU - Franklin, Richard C

AU - Mills, Jane

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Over the last forty years, case study research has undergone substantial methodological development. This evolution has resulted in a pragmatic, flexible research approach, capable of providing comprehensive in-depth understanding of a diverse range of issues across a number of disciplines. Change and progress have stemmed from parallel influences of historical transformations in approaches to research and individual researcher’s preferences, perspectives, and interpretations of this design. Researchers who have contributed to the development of case study research come from diverse disciplines with different philosophical perspectives, resulting in a variety of definitions and approaches. For the researcher new to using case study, such variety can create a confusing platform for its application. In this article, we explore the evolution of case study research, discuss methodological variations, and summarize key elements with the aim of providing guidance on the available options for researchers wanting to use case study in their work.

AB - Over the last forty years, case study research has undergone substantial methodological development. This evolution has resulted in a pragmatic, flexible research approach, capable of providing comprehensive in-depth understanding of a diverse range of issues across a number of disciplines. Change and progress have stemmed from parallel influences of historical transformations in approaches to research and individual researcher’s preferences, perspectives, and interpretations of this design. Researchers who have contributed to the development of case study research come from diverse disciplines with different philosophical perspectives, resulting in a variety of definitions and approaches. For the researcher new to using case study, such variety can create a confusing platform for its application. In this article, we explore the evolution of case study research, discuss methodological variations, and summarize key elements with the aim of providing guidance on the available options for researchers wanting to use case study in their work.

KW - Case study

KW - Method

KW - Methodology

KW - Nursing research

KW - Qualitative

KW - Research

KW - Research design

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85011106050&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85011106050

SN - 1438-5627

JO - Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung

JF - Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung

The Use of Qualitative Content Analysis in Case Study Research

• Florian Kohlbacher Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien

Author Biography

Florian kohlbacher, wirtschaftsuniversität wien, how to cite.

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

Copyright (c) 2006 Florian Kohlbacher

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

Make a Submission

Current issue, information.

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

Usage Statistics Information

We log anonymous usage statistics. Please read the privacy information for details.

Developed By

2000-2024 Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research (ISSN 1438-5627) Institut für Qualitative Forschung , Internationale Akademie Berlin gGmbH

Hosting: Center for Digital Systems , Freie Universität Berlin Funding 2023-2025 by the KOALA project

FQS received the Enter Award 2024 in the "Pioneering Achievement" category , funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and implemented by the think tank iRights.Lab.

Privacy Statement Accessibility Statement

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Sage Choice
• PMC11334375

Methodologic and Data-Analysis Triangulation in Case Studies: A Scoping Review

Margarithe charlotte schlunegger.

1 Department of Health Professions, Applied Research & Development in Nursing, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Bern, Switzerland

2 Faculty of Health, School of Nursing Science, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany

Maya Zumstein-Shaha

Rebecca palm.

3 Department of Health Care Research, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany

Associated Data

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-wjn-10.1177_01939459241263011 for Methodologic and Data-Analysis Triangulation in Case Studies: A Scoping Review by Margarithe Charlotte Schlunegger, Maya Zumstein-Shaha and Rebecca Palm in Western Journal of Nursing Research

We sought to explore the processes of methodologic and data-analysis triangulation in case studies using the example of research on nurse practitioners in primary health care.

Design and methods:

We conducted a scoping review within Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework, considering studies that defined a case study design and used 2 or more data sources, published in English or German before August 2023.

Data sources:

The databases searched were MEDLINE and CINAHL, supplemented with hand searching of relevant nursing journals. We also examined the reference list of all the included studies.

In total, 63 reports were assessed for eligibility. Ultimately, we included 8 articles. Five studies described within-method triangulation, whereas 3 provided information on between/across-method triangulation. No study reported within-method triangulation of 2 or more quantitative data-collection procedures. The data-collection procedures were interviews, observation, documentation/documents, service records, and questionnaires/assessments. The data-analysis triangulation involved various qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis. Details about comparing or contrasting results from different qualitative and mixed-methods data were lacking.

Conclusions:

Various processes for methodologic and data-analysis triangulation are described in this scoping review but lack detail, thus hampering standardization in case study research, potentially affecting research traceability. Triangulation is complicated by terminological confusion. To advance case study research in nursing, authors should reflect critically on the processes of triangulation and employ existing tools, like a protocol or mixed-methods matrix, for transparent reporting. The only existing reporting guideline should be complemented with directions on methodologic and data-analysis triangulation.

Case study research is defined as “an empirical method that investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the ‘case’) in depth and within its real-world context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clearly evident. A case study relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to converge in a triangulating fashion.” 1 (p15) This design is described as a stand-alone research approach equivalent to grounded theory and can entail single and multiple cases. 1 , 2 However, case study research should not be confused with single clinical case reports. “Case reports are familiar ways of sharing events of intervening with single patients with previously unreported features.” 3 (p107) As a methodology, case study research encompasses substantially more complexity than a typical clinical case report. 1 , 3

A particular characteristic of case study research is the use of various data sources, such as quantitative data originating from questionnaires as well as qualitative data emerging from interviews, observations, or documents. Therefore, a case study always draws on multiple sources of evidence, and the data must converge in a triangulating manner. 1 When using multiple data sources, a case or cases can be examined more convincingly and accurately, compensating for the weaknesses of the respective data sources. 1 Another characteristic is the interaction of various perspectives. This involves comparing or contrasting perspectives of people with different points of view, eg, patients, staff, or leaders. 4 Through triangulation, case studies contribute to the completeness of the research on complex topics, such as role implementation in clinical practice. 1 , 5 Triangulation involves a combination of researchers from various disciplines, of theories, of methods, and/or of data sources. By creating connections between these sources (ie, investigator, theories, methods, data sources, and/or data analysis), a new understanding of the phenomenon under study can be obtained. 6 , 7

This scoping review focuses on methodologic and data-analysis triangulation because concrete procedures are missing, eg, in reporting guidelines. Methodologic triangulation has been called methods, mixed methods, or multimethods. 6 It can encompass within-method triangulation and between/across-method triangulation. 7 “Researchers using within-method triangulation use at least 2 data-collection procedures from the same design approach.” 6 (p254) Within-method triangulation is either qualitative or quantitative but not both. Therefore, within-method triangulation can also be considered data source triangulation. 8 In contrast, “researchers using between/across-method triangulation employ both qualitative and quantitative data-collection methods in the same study.” 6 (p254) Hence, methodologic approaches are combined as well as various data sources. For this scoping review, the term “methodologic triangulation” is maintained to denote between/across-method triangulation. “Data-analysis triangulation is the combination of 2 or more methods of analyzing data.” 6 (p254)

Although much has been published on case studies, there is little consensus on the quality of the various data sources, the most appropriate methods, or the procedures for conducting methodologic and data-analysis triangulation. 5 According to the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) clearinghouse for reporting guidelines, one standard exists for organizational case studies. 9 Organizational case studies provide insights into organizational change in health care services. 9 Rodgers et al 9 pointed out that, although high-quality studies are being funded and published, they are sometimes poorly articulated and methodologically inadequate. In the reporting checklist by Rodgers et al, 9 a description of the data collection is included, but reporting directions on methodologic and data-analysis triangulation are missing. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the process of methodologic and data-analysis triangulation in case studies. Accordingly, we conducted a scoping review to elicit descriptions of and directions for triangulation methods and analysis, drawing on case studies of nurse practitioners (NPs) in primary health care as an example. Case studies are recommended to evaluate the implementation of new roles in (primary) health care, such as that of NPs. 1 , 5 Case studies on new role implementation can generate a unique and in-depth understanding of specific roles (individual), teams (smaller groups), family practices or similar institutions (organization), and social and political processes in health care systems. 1 , 10 The integration of NPs into health care systems is at different stages of progress around the world. 11 Therefore, studies are needed to evaluate this process.

The methodological framework by Arksey and O’Malley 12 guided this scoping review. We examined the current scientific literature on the use of methodologic and data-analysis triangulation in case studies on NPs in primary health care. The review process included the following stages: (1) establishing the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) selecting the studies for inclusion; (4) charting the data; (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results; and (6) consulting experts in the field. 12 Stage 6 was not performed due to a lack of financial resources. The reporting of the review followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Review) guideline by Tricco et al 13 (guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses [ Supplementary Table A ]). Scoping reviews are not eligible for registration in PROSPERO.

Stage 1: Establishing the Research Question

The aim of this scoping review was to examine the process of triangulating methods and analysis in case studies on NPs in primary health care to improve the reporting. We sought to answer the following question: How have methodologic and data-analysis triangulation been conducted in case studies on NPs in primary health care? To answer the research question, we examined the following elements of the selected studies: the research question, the study design, the case definition, the selected data sources, and the methodologic and data-analysis triangulation.

Stage 2: Identifying Relevant Studies

A systematic database search was performed in the MEDLINE (via PubMed) and CINAHL (via EBSCO) databases between July and September 2020 to identify relevant articles. The following terms were used as keyword search strategies: (“Advanced Practice Nursing” OR “nurse practitioners”) AND (“primary health care” OR “Primary Care Nursing”) AND (“case study” OR “case studies”). Searches were limited to English- and German-language articles. Hand searches were conducted in the journals Nursing Inquiry , BMJ Open , and BioMed Central ( BMC ). We also screened the reference lists of the studies included. The database search was updated in August 2023. The complete search strategy for all the databases is presented in Supplementary Table B .

Stage 3: Selecting the Studies

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

We used the inclusion and exclusion criteria reported in Table 1 . We included studies of NPs who had at least a master’s degree in nursing according to the definition of the International Council of Nurses. 14 This scoping review considered studies that were conducted in primary health care practices in rural, urban, and suburban regions. We excluded reviews and study protocols in which no data collection had occurred. Articles were included without limitations on the time period or country of origin.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.

Screening process

After the search, we collated and uploaded all the identified records into EndNote v.X8 (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) and removed any duplicates. Two independent reviewers (MCS and SA) screened the titles and abstracts for assessment in line with the inclusion criteria. They retrieved and assessed the full texts of the selected studies while applying the inclusion criteria. Any disagreements about the eligibility of studies were resolved by discussion or, if no consensus could be reached, by involving experienced researchers (MZ-S and RP).

Stages 4 and 5: Charting the Data and Collating, Summarizing, and Reporting the Results

The first reviewer (MCS) extracted data from the selected publications. For this purpose, an extraction tool developed by the authors was used. This tool comprised the following criteria: author(s), year of publication, country, research question, design, case definition, data sources, and methodologic and data-analysis triangulation. First, we extracted and summarized information about the case study design. Second, we narratively summarized the way in which the data and methodological triangulation were described. Finally, we summarized the information on within-case or cross-case analysis. This process was performed using Microsoft Excel. One reviewer (MCS) extracted data, whereas another reviewer (SA) cross-checked the data extraction, making suggestions for additions or edits. Any disagreements between the reviewers were resolved through discussion.

A total of 149 records were identified in 2 databases. We removed 20 duplicates and screened 129 reports by title and abstract. A total of 46 reports were assessed for eligibility. Through hand searches, we identified 117 additional records. Of these, we excluded 98 reports after title and abstract screening. A total of 17 reports were assessed for eligibility. From the 2 databases and the hand search, 63 reports were assessed for eligibility. Ultimately, we included 8 articles for data extraction. No further articles were included after the reference list screening of the included studies. A PRISMA flow diagram of the study selection and inclusion process is presented in Figure 1 . As shown in Tables 2 and ​ and3, 3 , the articles included in this scoping review were published between 2010 and 2022 in Canada (n = 3), the United States (n = 2), Australia (n = 2), and Scotland (n = 1).

PRISMA flow diagram.

Characteristics of Articles Included.

Overview of Within-Method, Between/Across-Method, and Data-Analysis Triangulation.

Research Question, Case Definition, and Case Study Design

The following sections describe the research question, case definition, and case study design. Case studies are most appropriate when asking “how” or “why” questions. 1 According to Yin, 1 how and why questions are explanatory and lead to the use of case studies, histories, and experiments as the preferred research methods. In 1 study from Canada, eg, the following research question was presented: “How and why did stakeholders participate in the system change process that led to the introduction of the first nurse practitioner-led Clinic in Ontario?” (p7) 19 Once the research question has been formulated, the case should be defined and, subsequently, the case study design chosen. 1 In typical case studies with mixed methods, the 2 types of data are gathered concurrently in a convergent design and the results merged to examine a case and/or compare multiple cases. 10

Research question

“How” or “why” questions were found in 4 studies. 16 , 17 , 19 , 22 Two studies additionally asked “what” questions. Three studies described an exploratory approach, and 1 study presented an explanatory approach. Of these 4 studies, 3 studies chose a qualitative approach 17 , 19 , 22 and 1 opted for mixed methods with a convergent design. 16

In the remaining studies, either the research questions were not clearly stated or no “how” or “why” questions were formulated. For example, “what” questions were found in 1 study. 21 No information was provided on exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory approaches. Schadewaldt et al 21 chose mixed methods with a convergent design.

Case definition and case study design

A total of 5 studies defined the case as an organizational unit. 17 , 18 - 20 , 22 Of the 8 articles, 4 reported multiple-case studies. 16 , 17 , 22 , 23 Another 2 publications involved single-case studies. 19 , 20 Moreover, 2 publications did not state the case study design explicitly.

Within-Method Triangulation

This section describes within-method triangulation, which involves employing at least 2 data-collection procedures within the same design approach. 6 , 7 This can also be called data source triangulation. 8 Next, we present the single data-collection procedures in detail. In 5 studies, information on within-method triangulation was found. 15 , 17 - 19 , 22 Studies describing a quantitative approach and the triangulation of 2 or more quantitative data-collection procedures could not be included in this scoping review.

Qualitative approach

Five studies used qualitative data-collection procedures. Two studies combined face-to-face interviews and documents. 15 , 19 One study mixed in-depth interviews with observations, 18 and 1 study combined face-to-face interviews and documentation. 22 One study contained face-to-face interviews, observations, and documentation. 17 The combination of different qualitative data-collection procedures was used to present the case context in an authentic and complex way, to elicit the perspectives of the participants, and to obtain a holistic description and explanation of the cases under study.

All 5 studies used qualitative interviews as the primary data-collection procedure. 15 , 17 - 19 , 22 Face-to-face, in-depth, and semi-structured interviews were conducted. The topics covered in the interviews included processes in the introduction of new care services and experiences of barriers and facilitators to collaborative work in general practices. Two studies did not specify the type of interviews conducted and did not report sample questions. 15 , 18

Observations

In 2 studies, qualitative observations were carried out. 17 , 18 During the observations, the physical design of the clinical patients’ rooms and office spaces was examined. 17 Hungerford et al 18 did not explain what information was collected during the observations. In both studies, the type of observation was not specified. Observations were generally recorded as field notes.

Public documents

In 3 studies, various qualitative public documents were studied. 15 , 19 , 22 These documents included role description, education curriculum, governance frameworks, websites, and newspapers with information about the implementation of the role and general practice. Only 1 study failed to specify the type of document and the collected data. 15

Electronic health records

In 1 study, qualitative documentation was investigated. 17 This included a review of dashboards (eg, provider productivity reports or provider quality dashboards in the electronic health record) and quality performance reports (eg, practice-wide or co-management team-wide performance reports).

Between/Across-Method Triangulation

This section describes the between/across methods, which involve employing both qualitative and quantitative data-collection procedures in the same study. 6 , 7 This procedure can also be denoted “methodologic triangulation.” 8 Subsequently, we present the individual data-collection procedures. In 3 studies, information on between/across triangulation was found. 16 , 20 , 21

Mixed methods

Three studies used qualitative and quantitative data-collection procedures. One study combined face-to-face interviews, documentation, and self-assessments. 16 One study employed semi-structured interviews, direct observation, documents, and service records, 20 and another study combined face-to-face interviews, non-participant observation, documents, and questionnaires. 23

All 3 studies used qualitative interviews as the primary data-collection procedure. 16 , 20 , 23 Face-to-face and semi-structured interviews were conducted. In the interviews, data were collected on the introduction of new care services and experiences of barriers to and facilitators of collaborative work in general practices.

Observation

In 2 studies, direct and non-participant qualitative observations were conducted. 20 , 23 During the observations, the interaction between health professionals or the organization and the clinical context was observed. Observations were generally recorded as field notes.

In 2 studies, various qualitative public documents were examined. 20 , 23 These documents included role description, newspapers, websites, and practice documents (eg, flyers). In the documents, information on the role implementation and role description of NPs was collected.

Individual journals

In 1 study, qualitative individual journals were studied. 16 These included reflective journals from NPs, who performed the role in primary health care.

Service records

Only 1 study involved quantitative service records. 20 These service records were obtained from the primary care practices and the respective health authorities. They were collected before and after the implementation of an NP role to identify changes in patients’ access to health care, the volume of patients served, and patients’ use of acute care services.

Questionnaires/Assessment

In 2 studies, quantitative questionnaires were used to gather information about the teams’ satisfaction with collaboration. 16 , 21 In 1 study, 3 validated scales were used. The scales measured experience, satisfaction, and belief in the benefits of collaboration. 21 Psychometric performance indicators of these scales were provided. However, the time points of data collection were not specified; similarly, whether the questionnaires were completed online or by hand was not mentioned. A competency self-assessment tool was used in another study. 16 The assessment comprised 70 items and included topics such as health promotion, protection, disease prevention and treatment, the NP-patient relationship, the teaching-coaching function, the professional role, managing and negotiating health care delivery systems, monitoring and ensuring the quality of health care practice, and cultural competence. Psychometric performance indicators were provided. The assessment was completed online with 2 measurement time points (pre self-assessment and post self-assessment).

Data-Analysis Triangulation

This section describes data-analysis triangulation, which involves the combination of 2 or more methods of analyzing data. 6 Subsequently, we present within-case analysis and cross-case analysis.

Mixed-methods analysis

Three studies combined qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis. 16 , 20 , 21 Two studies involved deductive and inductive qualitative analysis, and qualitative data were analyzed thematically. 20 , 21 One used deductive qualitative analysis. 16 The method of analysis was not specified in the studies. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics in 3 studies. 16 , 20 , 23 The descriptive statistics comprised the calculation of the mean, median, and frequencies.

Qualitative methods of analysis

Two studies combined deductive and inductive qualitative analysis, 19 , 22 and 2 studies only used deductive qualitative analysis. 15 , 18 Qualitative data were analyzed thematically in 1 study, 22 and data were treated with content analysis in the other. 19 The method of analysis was not specified in the 2 studies.

Within-case analysis

In 7 studies, a within-case analysis was performed. 15 - 20 , 22 Six studies used qualitative data for the within-case analysis, and 1 study employed qualitative and quantitative data. Data were analyzed separately, consecutively, or in parallel. The themes generated from qualitative data were compared and then summarized. The individual cases were presented mostly as a narrative description. Quantitative data were integrated into the qualitative description with tables and graphs. Qualitative and quantitative data were also presented as a narrative description.

Cross-case analyses

Of the multiple-case studies, 5 carried out cross-case analyses. 15 - 17 , 20 , 22 Three studies described the cross-case analysis using qualitative data. Two studies reported a combination of qualitative and quantitative data for the cross-case analysis. In each multiple-case study, the individual cases were contrasted to identify the differences and similarities between the cases. One study did not specify whether a within-case or a cross-case analysis was conducted. 23

Confirmation or contradiction of data

This section describes confirmation or contradiction through qualitative and quantitative data. 1 , 4 Qualitative and quantitative data were reported separately, with little connection between them. As a result, the conclusions on neither the comparisons nor the contradictions could be clearly determined.

Confirmation or contradiction among qualitative data

In 3 studies, the consistency of the results of different types of qualitative data was highlighted. 16 , 19 , 21 In particular, documentation and interviews or interviews and observations were contrasted:

• Confirmation between interviews and documentation: The data from these sources corroborated the existence of a common vision for an NP-led clinic. 19
• Confirmation among interviews and observation: NPs experienced pressure to find and maintain their position within the existing system. Nurse practitioners and general practitioners performed complete episodes of care, each without collaborative interaction. 21
• Contradiction among interviews and documentation: For example, interviewees mentioned that differentiating the scope of practice between NPs and physicians is difficult as there are too many areas of overlap. However, a clear description of the scope of practice for the 2 roles was provided. 21

Confirmation through a combination of qualitative and quantitative data

Both types of data showed that NPs and general practitioners wanted to have more time in common to discuss patient cases and engage in personal exchanges. 21 In addition, the qualitative and quantitative data confirmed the individual progression of NPs from less competent to more competent. 16 One study pointed out that qualitative and quantitative data obtained similar results for the cases. 20 For example, integrating NPs improved patient access by increasing appointment availability.

Contradiction through a combination of qualitative and quantitative data

Although questionnaire results indicated that NPs and general practitioners experienced high levels of collaboration and satisfaction with the collaborative relationship, the qualitative results drew a more ambivalent picture of NPs’ and general practitioners’ experiences with collaboration. 21

Research Question and Design

The studies included in this scoping review evidenced various research questions. The recommended formats (ie, how or why questions) were not applied consistently. Therefore, no case study design should be applied because the research question is the major guide for determining the research design. 2 Furthermore, case definitions and designs were applied variably. The lack of standardization is reflected in differences in the reporting of these case studies. Generally, case study research is viewed as allowing much more freedom and flexibility. 5 , 24 However, this flexibility and the lack of uniform specifications lead to confusion.

Methodologic Triangulation

Methodologic triangulation, as described in the literature, can be somewhat confusing as it can refer to either data-collection methods or research designs. 6 , 8 For example, methodologic triangulation can allude to qualitative and quantitative methods, indicating a paradigmatic connection. Methodologic triangulation can also point to qualitative and quantitative data-collection methods, analysis, and interpretation without specific philosophical stances. 6 , 8 Regarding “data-collection methods with no philosophical stances,” we would recommend using the wording “data source triangulation” instead. Thus, the demarcation between the method and the data-collection procedures will be clearer.

Within-Method and Between/Across-Method Triangulation

Yin 1 advocated the use of multiple sources of evidence so that a case or cases can be investigated more comprehensively and accurately. Most studies included multiple data-collection procedures. Five studies employed a variety of qualitative data-collection procedures, and 3 studies used qualitative and quantitative data-collection procedures (mixed methods). In contrast, no study contained 2 or more quantitative data-collection procedures. In particular, quantitative data-collection procedures—such as validated, reliable questionnaires, scales, or assessments—were not used exhaustively. The prerequisites for using multiple data-collection procedures are availability, the knowledge and skill of the researcher, and sufficient financial funds. 1 To meet these prerequisites, research teams consisting of members with different levels of training and experience are necessary. Multidisciplinary research teams need to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of different data sources and collection procedures. 1

Qualitative methods of analysis and results

When using multiple data sources and analysis methods, it is necessary to present the results in a coherent manner. Although the importance of multiple data sources and analysis has been emphasized, 1 , 5 the description of triangulation has tended to be brief. Thus, traceability of the research process is not always ensured. The sparse description of the data-analysis triangulation procedure may be due to the limited number of words in publications or the complexity involved in merging the different data sources.

Only a few concrete recommendations regarding the operationalization of the data-analysis triangulation with the qualitative data process were found. 25 A total of 3 approaches have been proposed 25 : (1) the intuitive approach, in which researchers intuitively connect information from different data sources; (2) the procedural approach, in which each comparative or contrasting step in triangulation is documented to ensure transparency and replicability; and (3) the intersubjective approach, which necessitates a group of researchers agreeing on the steps in the triangulation process. For each case study, one of these 3 approaches needs to be selected, carefully carried out, and documented. Thus, in-depth examination of the data can take place. Farmer et al 25 concluded that most researchers take the intuitive approach; therefore, triangulation is not clearly articulated. This trend is also evident in our scoping review.

Mixed-methods analysis and results

Few studies in this scoping review used a combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis. However, creating a comprehensive stand-alone picture of a case from both qualitative and quantitative methods is challenging. Findings derived from different data types may not automatically coalesce into a coherent whole. 4 O’Cathain et al 26 described 3 techniques for combining the results of qualitative and quantitative methods: (1) developing a triangulation protocol; (2) following a thread by selecting a theme from 1 component and following it across the other components; and (3) developing a mixed-methods matrix.

The most detailed description of the conducting of triangulation is the triangulation protocol. The triangulation protocol takes place at the interpretation stage of the research process. 26 This protocol was developed for multiple qualitative data but can also be applied to a combination of qualitative and quantitative data. 25 , 26 It is possible to determine agreement, partial agreement, “silence,” or dissonance between the results of qualitative and quantitative data. The protocol is intended to bring together the various themes from the qualitative and quantitative results and identify overarching meta-themes. 25 , 26

The “following a thread” technique is used in the analysis stage of the research process. To begin, each data source is analyzed to identify the most important themes that need further investigation. Subsequently, the research team selects 1 theme from 1 data source and follows it up in the other data source, thereby creating a thread. The individual steps of this technique are not specified. 26 , 27

A mixed-methods matrix is used at the end of the analysis. 26 All the data collected on a defined case are examined together in 1 large matrix, paying attention to cases rather than variables or themes. In a mixed-methods matrix (eg, a table), the rows represent the cases for which both qualitative and quantitative data exist. The columns show the findings for each case. This technique allows the research team to look for congruency, surprises, and paradoxes among the findings as well as patterns across multiple cases. In our review, we identified only one of these 3 approaches in the study by Roots and MacDonald. 20 These authors mentioned that a causal network analysis was performed using a matrix. However, no further details were given, and reference was made to a later publication. We could not find this publication.

Case Studies in Nursing Research and Recommendations

Because it focused on the implementation of NPs in primary health care, the setting of this scoping review was narrow. However, triangulation is essential for research in this area. This type of research was found to provide a good basis for understanding methodologic and data-analysis triangulation. Despite the lack of traceability in the description of the data and methodological triangulation, we believe that case studies are an appropriate design for exploring new nursing roles in existing health care systems. This is evidenced by the fact that case study research is widely used in many social science disciplines as well as in professional practice. 1 To strengthen this research method and increase the traceability in the research process, we recommend using the reporting guideline and reporting checklist by Rodgers et al. 9 This reporting checklist needs to be complemented with methodologic and data-analysis triangulation. A procedural approach needs to be followed in which each comparative step of the triangulation is documented. 25 A triangulation protocol or a mixed-methods matrix can be used for this purpose. 26 If there is a word limit in a publication, the triangulation protocol or mixed-methods matrix needs to be identified. A schematic representation of methodologic and data-analysis triangulation in case studies can be found in Figure 2 .

Schematic representation of methodologic and data-analysis triangulation in case studies (own work).

Limitations

This study suffered from several limitations that must be acknowledged. Given the nature of scoping reviews, we did not analyze the evidence reported in the studies. However, 2 reviewers independently reviewed all the full-text reports with respect to the inclusion criteria. The focus on the primary care setting with NPs (master’s degree) was very narrow, and only a few studies qualified. Thus, possible important methodological aspects that would have contributed to answering the questions were omitted. Studies describing the triangulation of 2 or more quantitative data-collection procedures could not be included in this scoping review due to the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Conclusions

Given the various processes described for methodologic and data-analysis triangulation, we can conclude that triangulation in case studies is poorly standardized. Consequently, the traceability of the research process is not always given. Triangulation is complicated by the confusion of terminology. To advance case study research in nursing, we encourage authors to reflect critically on methodologic and data-analysis triangulation and use existing tools, such as the triangulation protocol or mixed-methods matrix and the reporting guideline checklist by Rodgers et al, 9 to ensure more transparent reporting.

Supplemental Material

Acknowledgments.

The authors thank Simona Aeschlimann for her support during the screening process.

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material: Supplemental material for this article is available online.

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Die (Un)Möglichkeit allgemeiner Gütekriterien in der Qualitativen Forschung – Replik auf den Diskussionsanstoß zu „Gütekriterien qualitativer Forschung“ von Jörg Strübing, Stefan Hirschauer, Ruth Ayaß, Uwe Krähnke und Thomas Scheffer

The (im)possibility of general criteria for qualitative research – a reply to the stimulus for discussion from jörg strübing, stefan hirschauer, ruth ayaß, uwe krähnke and thomas scheffer.

Paul Eisewicht, geb. 1983 in Schmalkalden. Studium der Soziologie, Sozialpsychologie und Sozialpädagogik an der TU Dresden 2002–2008. Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter an der Universität Karlsruhe/KIT 2008–2014. Promotion am KIT 2013. Seit 2014 wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter an der TU Dortmund. Forschungsschwerpunkte: Qualitative Methoden, Ethnographie, Wissenssoziologie, Konsum und Zugehörigkeit.

Veröffentlichungen:

Szenen, Artefakte und Inszenierungen (zus. mit Forschungsverbund JuBri), 2018; Lebensweltanalytische Ethnographie (mit R. Hitzler), 2016;

Die Kunst des Reklamierens (2015);

Techniken der Zugehörigkeit (mit T. Grenz u. M. Pfadenhauer), 2012;

Tilo Grenz, geb. 1981 in Schwedt an der Oder. Studium der Soziologie, Sozialpsychologie und Sozialpädagogik an der TU Dresden 2001–2008. Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter an der Universität Karlsruhe/KIT 2008–2014. Promotion am KIT 2014. Ab 2014 Univ.-Ass. (Post-Doc) am Institut für Soziologie der Universität Wien im Arbeitsbereich ‚Kultur und Wissen‘. Forschungsschwerpunkte: Wissenssoziologische Mediatisierungsforschung, Organisationssoziologie, Wissenskulturen und prozessorientierte Methoden.

Mediatisierung als Handlungsproblem (2017);

Unravelling the App Store: Towards an Interpretative Perspective on Tracing (mit H. Kirchner), in: International Journal of Communication 12, 2018;

Uncovering the Essence. The Why and How of Supplementing Observation with Participation (mit M. Pfadenhauer), in: Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 44(5), 2015.

Zusammenfassung

Der Text ist eine Replik auf den Diskussionsanstoß zu Gütekriterien Qualitativer Forschung von Jörg Strübing et al. (2018). Die kritische Auseinandersetzung wird entlang dreier Hauptpunkte entwickelt: a) der Rezeption des Forschungsstandes, aus dem sich Anforderungen an Gütekriterien ableiten, die in dem von Strübing et al. vorgelegten Vorschlag unberücksichtigt geblieben sind; b) der Problematik der heutigen Vielfalt qualitativer Ansätze, die im Text nicht eingeholt wird; c) der Anwendungsanforderungen an Gütekriterien, die im Text durch auslegungsbedürftige Überbegriffe problematisch werden. Mit Blick auf die Kritik und den Forschungsstand stellt sich die Frage, ob überhaupt und wenn wie adäquat ansatzübergreifende Gütekriterien für die Qualitative Forschung formuliert werden können. Wir schließen daher mit einer Überlegung zu Möglichkeiten ansatzübergreifender Kriterien und plädieren für ‚rhetorisch-performierende‘ anstelle ‚paradigmatisch-operationalisierender‘ Kriterien.

The text is a reply to the stimulus for discussion on the quality of qualitative research by Jörg Strübing et al. (2018). The critique is developed along three main lines: a) the reception of the state of research from which requirements for quality criteria are derived, which have not been taken into account in the proposal submitted by Strübing et al.; b) the problem of today’s diversity of qualitative approaches, which is not taken into account in the text; c) the application requirements for quality criteria, which become problematic in the text due to concepts requiring too much interpretation. In view of the criticism and the state of research, the question arises whether and – if so – how adequately cross-approach quality criteria for qualitative research can be formulated at all. We therefore conclude with a reflection on the possibilities of cross-approach criteria and argue for ‘rhetorically-performativ’ instead of ‘paradigmatic-operationalising’ criteria.

About the authors

Alvesson, M. & Y. Gabriel, 2013: Beyond Formulaic Research. Academy of Management & Education 12(2): 245–263. 10.5465/amle.2012.0327 Search in Google Scholar

Amis, J.M. & M. L. Silk, 2008: The Philosophy and Politics of Quality in Qualitative Organizational Research. Organizational Research Methods 11: 456–480. 10.1177/1094428107300341 Search in Google Scholar

Bansal, P. & K. Corley, 2011: The Coming of Age for Qualitative Research: Embracing the Diversity of Qualitative Research. Academy of Management Journal 54: 233–237. 10.5465/amj.2011.60262792 Search in Google Scholar

Bansal, P. & K. Corley, 2012: Publishing in AMJ – Part 7: What’s different about Qualitative Research. Academy of Management Journal 55(3): 509–513. 10.5465/amj.2012.4003 Search in Google Scholar

Berteaux, D., 2018: Die Lebenserzählung. Opladen: Budrich. Search in Google Scholar

Bochner, A. & C. Ellis, 2016: Evocative Autoethnography. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315545417 Search in Google Scholar

Bohnsack, R., 2003a: „Heidi“. S. 109–120 in: Y. Ehrenspeck & B. Schäffer (Hrsg.), Film- und Fotoanalyse in der Erziehungswissenschaft. Wiesbaden: VS. 10.1007/978-3-322-97489-1_7 Search in Google Scholar

Bohnsack, R., 2003b: Rekonstruktive Sozialforschung. Opladen: Budrich. 10.1007/978-3-322-89614-8 Search in Google Scholar

Breuer, F. & J. Reichertz, 2001. Wissenschafts-Kriterien. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 2(3): Art. 24. Search in Google Scholar

Caelli, K., L. Ray & J. Mill, 2003: ‘Clear as Mud’. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2(2): 1–13. 10.1177/160940690300200201 Search in Google Scholar

Calderon Gomez, C., 2009: Assessing the Quality of Qualitative Health Research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 10(2): Art. 17. Search in Google Scholar

Creswell, J.W. & D.L. Miller, 2000: Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry. Theory Into Practice 39(3): 124–130. 10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2 Search in Google Scholar

Daft, R. & A. Lewin, 2008: Rigor and Relevance in Organization Studies. Organization Science 19: 177–183. 10.1287/orsc.1070.0346 Search in Google Scholar

Delefosse, M.S., C. Bruchez, A. Gavin & S. L. Stephen, 2015: Diversity of the Quality Criteria in Qualitative Research in the Health Sciences. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 16(2): Art. 11. Search in Google Scholar

Devers, K.J., 1999: How Will We Know “good” Qualitative Research when We See it? Health Services Research 34(5): 1153–1188. Search in Google Scholar

Döring, N. & J. Bortz, 2016: Qualitätskriterien in der empirischen Sozialforschung. S. 84–120 in: Dies.: Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-642-41089-5_3 Search in Google Scholar

Eberle, T.S., 2015: Exploring another’s subjective Lifeworld. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 44(5): 563–579. 10.1177/0891241615587383 Search in Google Scholar

Eickelmann, J., 2017: „Hate Speech“ und Verletzbarkeit im Digitalen Zeitalter. Bielefeld: Transcript. 10.1515/9783839440537 Search in Google Scholar

Eisewicht, P., 2018: Schreibtischarbeit. S. 13–32 in: N. Burzan & R. Hitzler (Hrsg.), Typologische Konstruktionen. Wiesbaden: VS. 10.1007/978-3-658-21011-3_2 Search in Google Scholar

Eisewicht, P., 2019: Qualitative Forschung – (k)ein Kinderspiel!? Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung i. V.. Search in Google Scholar

Elliott, R., C.T. Fischer & D.L. Rennie, 1999: Evolving Guidelines for Publication of Qualitative Research Studies in Psychology and related Fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 38: 215–229. 10.1348/014466599162782 Search in Google Scholar

Finlay, L., 2006: ‘Rigour’, ‘Ethical Integrity’ or ‘Artistry’? British Journal of Occupational Theory 69(7): 319–326. 10.1177/030802260606900704 Search in Google Scholar

Flick, U., 2010: Gütekriterien qualitativer Forschung. S. 395–407. In: G. Mey & K. Mruck (Hrsg.), Handbuch qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. Wiesbaden: VS. 10.1007/978-3-531-92052-8_28 Search in Google Scholar

Fossey, E., C. Harvey, F. McDermott & L. Davidson, 2002: Understanding and Evaluating Qualitative Research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 36: 717–732. 10.1046/j.1440-1614.2002.01100.x Search in Google Scholar

Guba, E. G., 1981: Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Naturalistic Inquiries. ERIC/ECTJ Annual Review Paper. ECTJ 29(2): 75–91. 10.1007/BF02766777 Search in Google Scholar

Guba E. G. & Y.S. Lincoln, 1989: Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage. Search in Google Scholar

Guba E. G. & Y.S. Lincoln, 1998: Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. S. 195–222 in: N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Hrsg.), The Landscape of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Search in Google Scholar

Hammersley, M., 1992a: Some Reflections on Ethnography and Validity. Qualitative Studies in Education 5(3): 195–203. 10.1080/0951839920050301 Search in Google Scholar

Hammersley, M., 1992b: What’s Wrong with Ethnography? London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315002675 Search in Google Scholar

Healy, M. & C. Perry, 2000: Comprehensive Criteria to judge Validity and Reliability of Qualitative Research within the Realism Paradigm. Qualitative Market Research 3(3): 118–126. 10.1108/13522750010333861 Search in Google Scholar

Henwood, K.L. & N.F. Pidgeon, 1992: Qualitative Research and Psychological Theorising. British Journal of Psychology 83(1): 97–112. 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1992.tb02426.x Search in Google Scholar

Hitzler, R., 2016: Zentrale Merkmale und periphere Irritationen interpretativer Sozialforschung. Zeitschrift für Qualitative Sozialforschung 1/2: 171–184. 10.3224/zqf.v17i1-2.25549 Search in Google Scholar

Hitzler, R. & P. Eisewicht, 2016: Lebensweltanalytische Ethnographie. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa. Search in Google Scholar

Hope K. & H. Waterman, 2003: Praiseworthy Pragmatism? Journal of Advanced Nursing 44(2): 120–127. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02777.x Search in Google Scholar

Joanna Briggs Institute, 2017: Checklist for Qualitative Research. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for use in JBI Systematic Reviews. Adelaide. Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, P., A. Buehring, C. Cassell & G. Symon, 2006: Evaluating Qualitative Management Research. International Journal of Management Reviews 8: 131–156. 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00124.x Search in Google Scholar

Kaupert, M. & I. Leser (Hrsg.), 2014: Hillarys Hand. Bielefeld: Transcript. 10.1515/transcript.9783839427491 Search in Google Scholar

Knoblauch, H., 2013: Qualitative Forschung am Scheideweg. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 14(3): Art. 12. Search in Google Scholar

Legewie, H., 1987: Interpretation und Validierung biographischer Interviews. s. 138–150 in: G. Jüttemann & H. Thomae (Hrsg.), Biographie und Psychologie. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-642-71614-0_10 Search in Google Scholar

Lincoln, Y.S. & E. G. Guba, 1985: Naturalistic Inquiry. London: Sage. 10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosn006 Search in Google Scholar

Lofland, J., 1974: Styles of reporting Qualitative Field Research. American Sociologist 9: 101–111. Search in Google Scholar

Maxwell, J.A., 1992: Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research. Harvard Educational Review 62: 279–300. 10.17763/haer.62.3.8323320856251826 Search in Google Scholar

Mayring, P., 2002: Einführung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung. Weinheim: Beltz. Search in Google Scholar

Meyrick, J., 2006: What is good Qualitative Research? Journal of Health Psychology 11(5): 799–808. 10.1177/1359105306066643 Search in Google Scholar

Miles, M.B & A.M. Huberman, 1994: Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Search in Google Scholar

Morse, J.M., 1994: Emerging from the Data. S. 23–43 in: Dies. (Hrsg.), Critical issues in Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 10.2307/2076454 Search in Google Scholar

Morse J.M., M. Barrett, M. Mayan, K. Olson & J. Spiers, 2002: Verification Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 1(2): 1–19. 10.1177/160940690200100202 Search in Google Scholar

Morse, J.M. & P.A. Field, 1996: Nursing Research. London: Chapman & Hall. 10.1007/978-1-4899-4471-9 Search in Google Scholar

Morrow, S. L., 2005: Quality and Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research in Counseling Psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology 52(2): 250–260. 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250 Search in Google Scholar

Müller, M.R. & H.-G. Soeffner (Hrsg.), 2018: Das Bild als soziologisches Problem. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa. Search in Google Scholar

Northcote, M.T., 2012: Selecting Criteria to Evaluate Qualitative Research. S. 99–110 in: M. Kiley (Hrsg.), Narratives of Transition. Canberra: Australian National University. Search in Google Scholar

O’Brien, B.C., I.B. Harris, T.J. Beckman, D.A. Reed & D.A. Cook, 2014: Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. Medicine 89(9): 1245–1251. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388 Search in Google Scholar

O’Reilly, M. & N. Parker, 2012: ‘Unsatisfactory Saturation’. Qualitative Research 13(2): 190–197. 10.1177/1468794112446106 Search in Google Scholar

Pfadenhauer, M. & T. Grenz, 2015: Uncovering the Essence. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 44(5): 598–616. 10.1177/0891241615587382 Search in Google Scholar

Pratt, M., 2008: Fitting oval Pegs into round Holes. Organizational Research Methods 11: 481–509. 10.1177/1094428107303349 Search in Google Scholar

Przyborski, A. & G. Haller (Hrsg.), 2014: Das politische Bild. Opladen: Budrich. 10.2307/j.ctvddzn6x Search in Google Scholar

Rocco, T.S., 2010: Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies. Human Ressource Development International 13(4): 375–378. 10.1080/13678868.2010.501959 Search in Google Scholar

Rolfe, G., 2006: Validity, Trustworthiness and Rigour. Journal of Advanced Nursing 53(3): 304–310. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03727.x Search in Google Scholar

Sandelowski, M., 1986: The Problem of Rigor in Qualitative Research. Advances in Nursing Science 8: 27–37. 10.1097/00012272-198604000-00005 Search in Google Scholar

Sandelowski, M. & J. Barroso, 2002: Reading Qualitative Studies. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 1(1): 74–108. 10.1177/160940690200100107 Search in Google Scholar

Savall, H., V. Zardet, M. Bonnet & M. Peron, 2008: The Emergence of Implicit Criteria actually Used by the Reviewers of Qualitative Research Articles. Organizational Research Methods 11: 510–540. 10.1177/1094428107308855 Search in Google Scholar

Schadler, C., 2013: Vater, Mutter, Kind werden. Bielefeld: Transcript. 10.1515/transcript.9783839422755 Search in Google Scholar

Sparkes, C., 2001: Myth 94: Qualitative Health Researchers will agree about Validity. Qualitative Health Research 11: 538–552. 10.1177/104973230101100409 Search in Google Scholar

Steinke, I., 1999: Kriterien Qualitativer Forschung. Weinheim: Juventa. Search in Google Scholar

Steinke, I., 2012: Gütekriterien Qualitativer Forschung. S. 319–331 in: U. Flick, E. v. Kardorff & I. Steinke (Hrsg.), Qualitative Forschung. Reinbek: Rowohlt. Search in Google Scholar

Stiles, W.B., 1999: Evaluating Qualitative Research. Evidence-Based Mental Health 2(4): 99–101. 10.1136/ebmh.2.4.99 Search in Google Scholar

Strübing, J., 2018: Qualitative Sozialforschung. Berlin: DeGruyter. 10.1515/9783110529920-001 Search in Google Scholar

Strübing, J., S. Hirschauer, R. Ayaß, U. Krähnke, T. Scheffer, 2018: Gütekriterien qualitativer Forschung. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 47(2): 83–100. 10.1515/zfsoz-2018-1006 Search in Google Scholar

Symon, G., C. Cassell & P. Johnson, 2016: Evaluative Practices in Qualitative Management Research. International Journal of Management Reviews 20(1): 134–154. 10.1111/ijmr.12120 Search in Google Scholar

Taylor, E.W., J. Beck & E. Ainsworth, 2001: Publishing Qualitative Adult Education Research. Studies in the Education of Adults 33(2): 163–79. 10.1080/02660830.2001.11661452 Search in Google Scholar

Tong, A., P. Sainsbury & J. Craig, 2007: Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ). International Journal for Quality in Health Care 19(6): 349–357. 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 Search in Google Scholar

Tracy, S., 2010: Qualitative Quality: Eight ‘big-tent’ Criteria for excellent Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry 16: 837–851. 10.1177/1077800410383121 Search in Google Scholar

Tsang, E., 2012: Is this Referee really my Peer? Journal of Management Inquiry 22: 166–71. 10.1177/1056492612461306 Search in Google Scholar

Unger, H.v., 2014: Partizipative Forschung. Wiesbaden: Springer. Search in Google Scholar

Verl, C.M.z., 2018: Daten-Karrieren und epistemische Materialität. Stuttgart: Metzler. 10.1007/978-3-476-04604-8_9 Search in Google Scholar

Welch, C. & R. Piekkari, 2017: How Should We (not) Judge the ‚Quality‘ of Qualitative Research? Journal of World Business 52(5): 714–725. 10.1016/j.jwb.2017.05.007 Search in Google Scholar

Whittemore, R., S.K. Chase & C.L. Mandle, 2001: Validity in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research 11(4): 522–537. 10.1177/104973201129119299 Search in Google Scholar

Winter, R., 2011: Ein Plädoyer für kritische Perspektiven in der qualitativen Forschung. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 12(1): Art. 7. 10.1007/978-3-658-05538-7_7 Search in Google Scholar

Yardley, L., 2011: Demonstrating Validity in Qualitative Research. S. 234–251 in: J.A. Smith (Hrsg.), Qualitative Psychology.  London: Sage. Search in Google Scholar

Yin, R.K., 1981: The Case Study Crisis. Administrative Science Quarterly 26(1): 58–65. 10.2307/2392599 Search in Google Scholar

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

• Die Onlineversion dieses Artikels bietet Zusatzmaterial

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same issue.

• Urban/Rural Sociology
• Spatial Planning

Fallstudien

• Publisher: TU Dortmund University, Faculty of Spatial Planning

• University of Groningen

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Dan E. Miller

• Charles Hoch

• Frank Janning
• Claudius Wagemann

• J South Hist
• Kenneth W. Rose
• Clarence N. Stone
• KOLNER Z SOZIOL SOZ
• K.R. Popper

• Susann Kluge
• Robert E. Stake
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• DOI: 10.51878/cendekia.v4i2.2888
• Corpus ID: 270406076

ENGLISH SONGS FOR AN INDONESIAN TODDLER’ SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: A CASE STUDY

• Syifa Khofifah Saidah
• Published in CENDEKIA: Jurnal Ilmu… 11 June 2024
• CENDEKIA: Jurnal Ilmu Pengetahuan

Figures from this paper

7 References

Screen media and language development in infants and toddlers: an ecological perspective, incidental vocabulary learning through listening to songs, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Lessons Learned from the Launch and Implementation of the COVID-19 Contact Tracing Program in New York City: a Qualitative Study

• Original Article
• Published: 29 August 2024

Cite this article

• Margaret M. Paul   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3281-6234 1 ,
• Lorraine Kwok 2 ,
• Rachel E. Massar 2 ,
• Michelle Chau 2 ,
• Rita Larson 2 ,
• Stefanie Bendik 2 ,
• Lorna E. Thorpe 2 ,
• Anna Bershteyn 2 ,
• Nadia Islam 2 &
• Carolyn A. Berry 2  

On June 1, 2020, NYC Health + Hospitals, in partnership with the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, other city agencies, and a large network of community partners, launched the New York City Test & Trace (T2) COVID-19 response program to identify and isolate cases, reduce transmission through contact tracing, and provide support to residents during isolation or quarantine periods. In this paper, we describe lessons learned with respect to planning and implementation of case notification and contact tracing. Our findings are based on extensive document review and analysis of 74 key informant interviews with T2 leadership and frontline staff, cases, and contacts conducted between January and September 2022. Interviews elicited respondent background, history of program development, program leadership and structure, goals of the program, program evolution, staffing, data systems, elements of community engagement, trust with community, program reach, timeliness, equity, general barriers and challenges, general facilitators and best practices, and recommendations/improvement for the program. Facilitators and barriers revealed in the interviews primarily revolved around hiring and managing staff, data and technology, and quality of interactions with the public. Based on these facilitators and barriers, we identify suggestions to support effective planning and response for future case notification and contact tracing programs, including recommendations for planning during latent periods, case management and data systems, and processes for outreach to cases and contacts.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Evaluation of the implementation of a community health worker-led COVID-19 contact tracing intervention in Chiapas, Mexico, from March 2020 to December 2021

Lessons learned from implementing a surge capacity support program for COVID-19 contact management in Ontario

Evaluation of the New York City COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing program: a cascade of care analysis

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Thompson CN, Baumgartner J, Pichardo C, et al. COVID-19 Outbreak - New York City, February 29-June 1, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep . 2020;69(46):1725–9.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Paul MM, Conderino S, Massar R, et al. Evaluation of New York City’s Test & Trace Program for the SARS0-COV-2 Pandemic: Lessons Learned to Advance Reach, Equity, and Timeliness . A Report from the NYU Grossman School of Medicine Department of Population Health; 2023

Madad S, Cagliuso NV, Chokshi DA, Allen M, Newton-Dame R, Singer J. NYC Health + Hospitals’ Rapid Responses To COVID-19 Were Built On A Foundation Of Emergency Management, Incident Command, And Analytics . Health Affairs Blog.  2020

Thomas Craig KJ, Rizvi R, Willis VC, Kassler WJ, Jackson GP. Effectiveness of contact tracing for viral disease mitigation and suppression: Evidence-based review. JMIR Public Health Surveill . 2021;7(10):e32468.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Blaney K, Foerster S, Baumgartner J, et al. COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing in New York City, June 1, 2020, to October 31, 2021. JAMA Netw Open . 2022;5(11):e2239661.

Conderino S, Thorpe L, Islam N, et al. Evaluation of the New York City COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing program: a cascade of care analysis. BMC Public Health. under review

Harper-Hardy P, Ruebush E, Allen M, Carlin M, Plescia M, Blumenstock JS. COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing programs and practice: snapshots from the field. J Public Health Manag Pract . 2022;28(4):353–7.

Gale RC, Wu J, Erhardt T, et al. Comparison of rapid vs in-depth qualitative analytic methods from a process evaluation of academic detailing in the Veterans Health Administration. Implement Sci . 2019;14(1):1–12.

Article   Google Scholar  

Pratt B, Parker M, Bull S. Equitable design and use of digital surveillance technologies during COVID-19: norms and concerns. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics . 2022;17(5):573–86.

Ruebush E, Fraser MR, Poulin A, Allen M, Lane JT, Blumenstock JS. COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing: early lessons learned and future opportunities. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2021;27 Suppl 1, COVID-19 and Public Health: Looking Back, Moving Forward:S87-S97

Woodward A, Rivers C. Building case investigation and contact tracing programs in US state and local health departments: a conceptual framework. Disaster Med Public Health Prep . 2023;17:e540.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Eliaz A, Blair AH, Chen YH, et al. Evaluating the impact of language concordance on Coronavirus Disease 2019 contact tracing outcomes among Spanish-speaking adults in San Francisco between June and November 2020. Open Forum Infect Dis . 2022;9(1):ofab612

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by NYC Health + Hospitals (1007645); L.T). The funder had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, 5777 E Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA

Margaret M. Paul

Department of Population Health, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, 180 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, USA

Lorraine Kwok, Rachel E. Massar, Michelle Chau, Rita Larson, Stefanie Bendik, Lorna E. Thorpe, Anna Bershteyn, Nadia Islam & Carolyn A. Berry

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margaret M. Paul .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

(PDF 10.1 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Paul, M.M., Kwok, L., Massar, R.E. et al. Lessons Learned from the Launch and Implementation of the COVID-19 Contact Tracing Program in New York City: a Qualitative Study. J Urban Health (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-024-00898-0

Download citation

Accepted : 09 July 2024

Published : 29 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-024-00898-0

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Implementation evaluation
• Contact tracing
• COVID-19 prevention and control
• Public health emergency preparedness
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research