assignment

1. Introduction

Case study research has grown in reputation as an effective methodology to investigate and
understand complex issues in real world settings. Case study designs have been used across a
number of disciplines, particularly the social sciences, education, business, law, and health, to
address a wide range of research questions. Consequently, over the last 40 years, through the
application of a variety of methodological approaches, case study research has undergone
substantial development. Change and progress have stemmed from parallel influences from
historical approaches to research and individual researcher's preferences, perspectives on, and
interpretations of case study research. Central to these variations is the underpinning ontological
and epistemological orientations of those involved in the evolution of case study research.
Researchers who have contributed to the development of case study research come from diverse
disciplines and their philosophical underpinnings have created variety and diversity in
approaches used. Consequently, various designs have been proposed for preparing, planning, and
conducting case study research with advice on key considerations for achieving success. As a
result, while case study research has evolved to be a pragmatic, flexible research approach, the
variation in definition, application, validity, and purposefulness can create a confusing platform
for its use. [1]

In this article, we examine each of these issues in turn, with the aim of improving our
understanding of case study research and clarifying the requisite tenets to consider when
designing a case study. We begin with an overview of the history and evolution of case study
research, followed by a discussion of the methodological and philosophical variations found
within case study designs. We end with a summary of the common characteristics of case study
research and a table that brings together the fundamental elements that we found common in all
case study approaches to research. [2]

2. History and Evolution

Case study research as a strategy for methodological exploration, according to FLYVBJERG

(2011) "has been around as long as recorded history" (p.302). Contemporary case study research
is said to have its origins in qualitative approaches to research in the disciplines of anthropology,
history, psychology, and sociology (MERRIAM, 1998; SIMONS, 2009; STEWART, 2014).
Historical examples of case study stem as far back as the early nineteenth century with the
biography of Charles DARWIN (STEWART, 2014). Most attribute the origins of case study
research to studies undertaken in anthropology and social sciences in the early twentieth century
when lengthy, detailed ethnographic studies of individuals and cultures were conducted using
this design (JOHANSSON, 2003, MERRIAM, 2009; SIMONS, 2009; STEWART, 2014).
Sociologists and anthropologists investigated people's lives, experiences, and how they
understood the social and cultural context of their world, with the aim of gaining insight into
how individuals interpreted and attributed meaning to their experiences and constructed their
worlds (JOHANSSON, 2003; SIMONS, 2009). Such investigations were conducted in the
natural setting of those experiences with results presented descriptively or as a narrative
(MERRIAM, 2009). The most notable case studies include THOMAS and ZNANIECKI's (1958
[1918-1920]) study of Polish peasants in Europe and America and, the ethnographic work by
MALINOWSKI (1913) in the Trobriand Islands in Melanesia that spanned over several years
(CRESWELL, HANSON, PLANO CLARK & MORALES, 2007; JOHANSSON, 2003;
STEWART, 2014). [3]

With the emergence and dominance of positivism in science in the late 1940s and 1950s,
quantitative methods became a popular focus for the social sciences. As a result, surveys,
experiments, and statistical methods anchored in quantitative approaches were favored and
considered more rigorous than qualitative designs (JOHANSSON, 2003). The dominance of
research using experimental designs continued through the 1960s and 1970s with quantitative
empirical results considered to be gold standard evidence. Case studies continued to be used
during this time, however usually as a method within quantitative studies or referred to as
descriptive research to study a specific phenomenon (MERRIAM, 2009). At the same time, case
study research was often criticized for its inability to support generalizability and thus considered
to provide limited validity and value as a research design (JOHANSSON, 2003; MERRIAM,
2009; STEWART, 2014). This context led to a philosophical division in research approaches:
those supporting positivism and quantitative approaches and those aligned with qualitative
methods embedded in constructivist and interpretivist paradigms. [4]

Antecedents of modern day case study research are most often cited as being conducted in the
Chicago School of Sociology between the 1920-1950s (STEWART, 2014). Here,
anthropologists practiced their methods on university cultures or by conducting lengthy case
studies involving field-based observations of groups with the aim of understanding their social
and cultural lives (CRESWELL et al., 2007; JOHANSSON, 2003; STEWART, 2014). Parallel to
the use of case studies in anthropology, medicine and disciplines in the social sciences such as
sociology, education and political science also embraced case study as a form of inquiry
(ANTHONY & JACK, 2009; BROWN, 2008; CRESWELL et al., 2007; GEORGE &
BENNETT, 2005; GERRING, 2004; SIMONS, 2009; YIN, 2014). [5]

A second generation of case study researchers emerged with the advent of grounded theory
methodology (GLASER & STRAUSS, 1967). Grounded theory "merged qualitative field study
methods from the Chicago School of Sociology with quantitative methods of data analysis"
(JOHANSSON, 2003, p.8), resulting in an inductive methodology that used detailed systematic
procedures to analyze data. This renewed interest in qualitative methodology led to a revival in
the use of case study in a number of disciplines (ANTHONY & JACK, 2009; GEORGE &
BENNETT, 2005; JOHANSSON, 2003; MERRIAM, 2009; STAKE, 1995). According to
JOHANSSON (2003), Robert YIN followed this progress, and drawing on scientific approaches
to research gained from his background in the social sciences, applied experimental logic to
naturalistic inquiry, and blended this with qualitative methods, further bridging the
methodological gap and strengthening the methodological quality of case study research. He
presented a structured process for undertaking case study research where formal propositions or
theories guide the research process and are tested as part of the outcome, highlighting his realist
approach to qualitative case study research. While still qualitative and inductive, it was
deterministic in nature with an emphasis on cause and effect, testing theories, and an
apprehension of the truth (BROWN, 2008; YIN, 2014). [6]
Similarly, the uptake of case study research in the political sciences, particularly during the
1980's and 1990’s, led to a more integrated methodological approach with the aim of theoretical
development and testing (GEORGE & BENNETT, 2005). The integration of formal, statistical,
and narrative methods in a single study, combined with the use of empirical methods for case
selection and causal inference, demonstrated the versatility of case study design and made a
significant contribution to its methodological evolution (ibid.). Similarly, case studies in
international relations integrated rigorous, standardized methods with statistical and formal
methods, including qualitative comparative analysis and process tracing to improve
understanding of world politics (BENNETT & ELMAN, 2007; GERRING, 2004; LEVY, 2007).
According to GEORGE and BENNETT (2005) "scholars have formalized case study methods
more completely and linked them to underlying arguments in the philosophy of science" (p.6).
The continued use of case study to understand the complexities of institutions, practices,
processes, and relations in politics, has demonstrated the utility of case study for researching
complex issues, and testing causal mechanisms that can be applied across varied disciplines. [7]

4. Common Characteristics of Case Study Research

Despite variation in the approaches of the different exponents of case study, there are
characteristics common to all of them. Case study research is consistently described as a versatile
form of qualitative inquiry most suitable for a comprehensive, holistic, and in-depth investigation
of a complex issue (phenomena, event, situation, organization, program individual or group) in
context, where the boundary between the context and issue is unclear and contains many
variables (CRESWELL, 2014; FLYVBJERG, 2011; MERRIAM, 2009; SIMONS, 2009;
STAKE, 2006; YIN, 2014). Case study research can be used to study a range of topics and
purposes (SIMONS, 2009; STAKE, 2006; STEWART, 2014) however, the essential requisite for
employing case study stems from one's motivation to illuminate understanding of complex
phenomena (MERRIAM, 2009; STAKE, 2006; YIN, 2014). Primarily exploratory and
explanatory in nature, case study is used to gain an understanding of the issue in real life settings
and recommended to answer how and why or less frequently what research questions
(FLYVBJERG, 2011; MERRIAM, 2009; SIMONS, 2009; STAKE, 2006; STEWART, 2014;
YIN 2014). [28]

Types of Case Studies

Under the more generalized category of case study exist several subdivisions, each of which is
custom selected for use depending upon the goals and/or objectives of the investigator. These
types of case study include the following:

Illustrative Case Studies

These are primarily descriptive studies. They typically utilize one or two instances of an event to
show what a situation is like. Illustrative case studies serve primarily to make the unfamiliar
familiar and to give readers a common language about the topic in question.

Exploratory (or pilot) Case Studies

These are condensed case studies performed before implementing a large scale investigation.
Their basic function is to help identify questions and select types of measurement prior to the
main investigation4. The case study's goal is to prove that further investigation is necessary. .
The primary pitfall of this type of study is that initial findings may seem convincing enough to
be released prematurely as conclusions.

Cumulative Case Studies

These serve to aggregate information from several sites collected at different times. The idea
behind these studies is the collection of past studies will allow for greater generalization without
additional cost or time being expended on new, possibly repetitive studies.

Critical Instance Case Studies

These examine one or more sites for either the purpose of examining a situation of unique
interest with little to no interest in generalizability, or to call into question or challenge a highly
generalized or universal assertion. This method is useful for answering cause and effect
questions.

Advantages:

Case studies are generally strong precisely where quantitative studies are
weaker (ibid., p. 19). George and Bennett have identified four advantages of case
studies in comparison to quantitative methods9: Their potential to achieve high
conceptual validity, strong procedures for fostering new hypotheses, usefulness
for closely examining the hypothesized role of causal mechanisms in the context
of individual cases, and their capacity for addressing causal complexity (ibid.).
Conceptual validity
Conceptual validity refers to the identification and measurement of the
indicators that best present the theoretical concepts that a researcher wants to
measure. Many of the variables that social scientists are interested in, such as
democracy, power, etc., are difficult to measure, so the researcher has to carry
out a “contextualized comparison,” which automatically searches for analytically
equivalent phenomena even if they are expressed in different terms and contexts.
This requires a detailed consideration of contextual factors, which is extremely
difficult to do in quantitative research but is very common in case studies. Whereas
quantitative research runs the risk of “conceptual stretching” by throwing together
dissimilar cases to get a larger sample, case studies allow for conceptual refinements
with a higher validity level over fewer number of cases (ibid., p. 19).
9 The authors define case study as a method of qualitative research; this is why they compare it
to quantitative methods.
The case study as a type of qualitative research 37
Deriving new hypotheses
Case studies are very suitable for serving the heuristic purpose of inductively
identifying additional variables and new hypotheses. Quantitative studies lack
procedures for inductively generating new hypotheses. Moreover, case studies
can analyse qualitatively complex events and take into account numerous variables
precisely because they do not require many cases or a limited number of
variables. Case study researchers are not limited to readily quantified variables
or pre-existing, well-defined datasets (ibid., p. 45).
Quantitative research can be used to identify deviant cases that may lead
to new hypotheses but, in and of themselves, lack any clear means of actually
identifying new hypotheses. Without additional examination, such as open-ended
interviews, it is not possible to find inductive means of identifying omitted variables
(ibid., p. 21).
Exploring causal mechanisms10
Case studies examine the operation of causal mechanisms in individual cases
in detail. Within a single case, they look at a large number of intervening variables
and inductively observe any unexpected aspect of the operation of a particular
causal mechanism or help identify what conditions are present in a case that
activate
the causal mechanism, while quantitative studies in their correlations
lack such causality (ibid., p. 21). However, one must keep in mind that it is not
entirely true that quantitative research does not include any causality. We are
referring to quantitative research’s inability to take into account contextual factors
other than those that are codified within the variables being measured; in this
situation, many additional variables that might also be contextually important
are missed.
Modelling and assessing complex causal relations
Case studies are able to accommodate complex causal relations, such as
equifinality,11 complex interaction effects, and path dependency.12 This advantage
is relative rather than absolute. Case studies can allow for equifinality by producing
generalizations that are narrower and more contingent. Notwithstanding
this advantage (more about generalization in continuation), others who prefer
quantitative methods appreciate theories that are more general even if this means
that they are more vague and more prone to counterexamples (ibid., p. 22).
10 Causal mechanism: “Y happened because of A, in spite of B,” whereas A means a set of
participative
causes and B means a potentially empty space of opposite causes (A cannot be empty; otherwise,
it would not be able to explain Y). For example, the car drove off the road due to inappropriate
speed
and sand on the road despite good road visibility and the driver’s alertness (Salmon in George
and
Bennett 2005, p. 145).
11 Equifinality means that the same end result can be obtained in different ways (Institute of the
Slovenian Language … n.d.)
12 Historical heritage essentially defines the developmental possibilities of future evolution (e.g.,
of each nation) (Vehovar 2005, p. 309).
38 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 1/2013 A. B. Starman
The use of case studies has some additional advantages as well. The connectedness
to everyday life and case studies’ abundance of individual elements and
details are important for researchers from two viewpoints. First, a case study is
important for developing different views of reality, including the awareness that
human behaviour cannot be understood merely as an act that is driven by a rule
or a theory. Second, case studies can contribute to the professional development of
a researcher, as case studies can provide concrete, context-dependent experience
that increases their research skills (Flyvbjerg 2006, p. 223).

 They are efficient for rare diseases or diseases with a long latency period between
exposure and disease manifestation.
 They are less costly and less time-consuming; they are advantageous when exposure data
is expensive or hard to obtain.
 They are advantageous when studying dynamic populations in which follow-up is
difficult.
 . The primary pitfall of this type of study is that initial findings may seem convincing
enough to be released prematurely as conclusions.
 Case studies allow a lot of detail to be collected that would not normally be easily
obtained by other research designs. The data collected is normally a lot richer and of
greater depth than can be found through other experimental designs.
 Case studies tend to be conducted on rare cases where large samples of similar
participants are not available. An example of this is the study of Phineas Gage by
Harlow, J.M. This example also connects with the point above with the depth of data
obtained. Cases of brain damage are quite minimal and it is extremely rare to find people
with the exact same parts of the brain affected. To be able to gain knowledge of brain
functions the damage between people have to be exact to ensure you are testing the right
thing, this can generally only be done through case studies.
 Within the case study, scientific experiments can be conducted.
 Case studies can help experimenters adapt ideas and produce novel hypotheses which can
be used for later testing.
 Knowledge! Again to Phineas Gage, his contributions to neuropsychology and the
workings of the brain are invaluable.

Disadvantage

Paradox, misunderstandings, and criticism

In the introduction, we noted that case studies are widely used but underrepresented.
Based on these findings, Gerring has identified a paradox in which
he correctly states that a case study exists in a strange, curious methodological
limbo, which, he believes, is due to a lack of understanding of this method (Gerring
2004, p. 341). Flyvbjerg has therefore sought to resolve this paradox and, in so
doing, to achieve a wider acceptance and application of research using case studies.
He has identified five misunderstandings about case studies that undermine the
credibility and application of this research type. These misunderstandings refer
primarily to the theory, reliability, and validity (Flyvbjerg 2006; 2011):
General, theoretical (context-independent) knowledge is 1. more valuable than
concrete, practical (context-dependent) knowledge.
2. It is impossible to generalize on the basis of an individual case; therefore,
the case study cannot contribute to scientific development.
3. The case study is most useful for generating hypotheses (that is, in the first
stage of a total research process), whereas other methods are more suitable
for hypotheses testing and theory building.
4. Case studies contain a bias toward verification; that is, a tendency to confirm
the researcher’s preconceived notions.
5. It is often difficult to summarize and develop general propositions and theories
on the basis of specific case studies.
We will now attempt to resolve and clarify these misunderstandings.
General, theoretical knowledge is more valuable than concrete, practical case
knowledge.
Social sciences do not have much to offer except concrete cases and contextdependent
knowledge because researchers have not succeeded in producing general,
context-independent theories. Case studies are especially well-suited to producing
this exact type of knowledge. The first argument can therefore be revised as this
statement (Flyvbjerg 2006; 2011): “Concrete case knowledge is more valuable for

 They are subject to selection bias.

 They are inefficient for rare exposures.
 Information on exposure is subject to observation bias.
 They generally do not allow calculation of incidence (absolute risk).
 One of the main criticisms is that the data collected cannot necessarily be generalised to
the wider population. This leads to data being collected over longitudinal case studies not
always being relevant or particularly useful.

 Some case studies are not scientific. Freud used case studies for many of his theories or
studies. Such examples are that of Anna O and Little Hans. Both of these are not
scientific nor are they able to be generalised. This can be attributed to them being case
studies, but also Freudian theory in general.
 Case studies are generally on one person, but there also tends to only be one experimenter
collecting the data. This can lead to bias in data collection, which can influence results
more than in different designs.
 It is also very difficult to draw a definite cause/effect from case studies.

Types of Subjects of Case Studies

There are generally five different types of case studies, and the subjects that they address. Every
case study, whether explanatory or exploratory, or intrinsic or instrumental, fits into one of these
five groups. These are:
Person – This type of study focuses on one particular individual. This case study would use
several types of research to determine an outcome.This case study is still one of the most
valuable in all of child development. Since it would be impossible to conduct this type of
research with a healthy child, the information garnered from Genie's case is invaluable.

Group – This type of study focuses on a group of people. This could be a family, a group or
friends, or even coworkers. An example of this type of case study would be the uncontacted
tribes of Indians in the Peruvian and Brazilian rainforest. These tribes have never had any
modern contact. Therefore, there is a great interest to study them.

Location – This type of study focuses on a place, and how and why people use the place.
Location studies can also be done on locations that are facing some kind of change. For example,
a case study could be done on Alaska, and whether the state is seeing the effects of climate
change.

Organization/Company – This type of study focuses on a business or an organization. This

could include the people who work for the company, or an event that occurred at the
organization.

This type of case study is used by accountants, auditors, financiers, as well as business students,
in order to learn how such a large company could get away with committing such a serious case
of corporate fraud for as long as they did. It can also be looked at from a psychological
standpoint, as it is interesting to learn why the executives took the large risks that they took.

Event – This type of study focuses on an event, whether cultural or societal, and how it affects
those that are affected by it. An example would be the Tylenol cyanide scandal. This event
affected Johnson & Johnson, the parent company, as well as the public at large.

Obviously the event itself was a very popular topic. It was important to learn what lead up to the
event, and how best to proven it from happening in the future. These studies are not only
important to the U.S. government, but to other governments hoping to prevent terrorism in their
countries.