Case Study

The term case study is not used in a standard way; at face value, its usage can be misleading because there is a sense in which all research investigates cases. Nevertheless, we can identify a core meaning of the term, as referring to research that studies a small number of cases, possibly even just one, in considerable depth; although various other features are also often implied.

Case study is usually contrasted with two other influential kinds of research design: the social survey and the experiment. The contrast with the survey relates to dimensions already mentioned: the number of cases investigated and the amount of detailed information the researcher collects about each case. Other things being equal, the less cases studied, the more information can be collected about each of them. Social surveys study a large number of cases but usually gather only a relatively small amount of data about each one, focusing on specific features of it (cases here are usually, though not always, individual respondents). By contrast, in case study, large amounts of information are collected about one or a few cases, across a wide range of features. Here the case may be an individual (as in life history work), an event, an institution, or even a whole national society or geographical region. A complication here is that when each case studied is large, social survey techniques may be used to collect data within it.

Case study can also be contrasted with experimental research. Although the latter also usually involves investigation of a small number of cases compared to survey work, what distinguishes it from case study is the fact that it involves direct control of variables. In experiments, the researcher creates the case(s) studied, whereas case study researchers identify cases out of naturally occurring social phenomena. This, too, is a dimension, not a dichotomy: Quasi-experiments and field experiments occupy mid-positions.

The term case study is also often taken to carry implications for the kind of data that are collected, and perhaps also for how these are analyzed. Frequently, but not always, it implies the collection of unstructured data, as well as qualitative analysis of those data. Moreover, this relates to a more fundamental issue about the purpose of the research. It is sometimes argued that the aim of case study research should be to capture cases in their uniqueness, rather than to use them as a basis for wider empirical or theoretical conclusions. This, again, is a matter of emphasis: It does not necessarily rule out an interest in coming to general conclusions, but it does imply that these are to be reached by means of inferences from what is found in particular cases, rather than through the cases being selected to test a hypothesis. In line with this, it is frequently argued that case studies should adopt an inductive orientation, but not all case study researchers accept this position.

Another question that arises in relation to case study concerns objectivity, in at least one sense of that term. Is the aim to produce an account of each case from an external or research point of view, one that may contradict the views of the people involved? Or is it solely to portray the character of each case “in its own terms”? This contrast is most obvious when the cases are people, so that the aim may be to “give voice” to them rather than to use them as respondents or even as informants. However, although this distinction may seem clear-cut, in practice it is more complicated. Multiple participants involved in a case may have diverse perspectives, and even the same person may present different views on different occasions. Furthermore, there are complexities involved in determining whether what is presented can ever “capture” participant views rather than presenting an “external” gloss on them.

...