Case-to-Case Synthesis

Case-to-case synthesis is one of several secondary analysis techniques that can improve the influence and usefulness of both qualitative and quantitative case study research results. Such syntheses also [Page 130]hold promise for addressing policy issues at the national level as they build understanding across several instances within a problem space, thus generating knowledge with broader applicability.

Other secondary analysis techniques appropriate for case studies are research reviews, secondary re-analyses, and metasyntheses. Research reviews are critical summaries and interpretations of the available research literature on a specific topic. As such, they are similar to literature reviews that focus on the theoretical framing of the study, the design, methods, analysis techniques, and/or findings of several studies. Secondary reanalyses are conducted when researchers have access to original data produced with a similar research focus, agenda, and data collection methods across unique settings, informants, or contexts. Secondary analyses, or re-analyses, of data using an improved lens or interpretive framework can generate new insights and contribute to knowledge in the problem space. Metasyntheses focus on theory building using the assumptions and techniques of grounded theory methodology through which the data, methods, findings, and theoretical frameworks of independent studies are examined with the goal of generating a synthesis of results across the collection of studies.

The focus of this entry, case-to-case synthesis, involves the in-depth examination of a collection of case studies—albeit ones with a common focus, method, or outcomes. The cases could be instances in a multi-site case study or could be case studies conducted independently. Multi-site case studies are typically designed to be intentionally integrated, whereas independently conducted studies are not. In the latter instance, the synthesis is intended to build integrative understanding of the problem space studied in the independent case studies. Researchers can explore several instances of a common or similar phenomenon, event, or population and can consider the combined cases as the collective case.

Because synthesis is fundamentally interpretive, different researchers may well focus on different aspects of the cases, reflect on and integrate those accounts into their own experiences, and render different syntheses. This is similar to what we would expect from two different integrative research reviews of the same corpus of studies. Because researchers bring different conceptual lenses to the task, two reviews of the same body of research would likely be organized differently, emphasize different elements of the studies, and draw different conclusions. In fact, this value-added interpretation is what makes intriguing research reviews—and syntheses of case studies—interesting and scholarly. It raises the resultant work above the mere recitation of previous studies—impoverished, annotated bibliographies—so soundly critiqued.