Author: Jen Wood

Case Study

A case study is unique in that it can be thought of both as a method, and as a research design, depending on the school of thought to which one subscribes.  Though it is named here as the former, the following explanation is constructed such that it is treated as the latter.  The author understands that a case study consists of multiple methods, but that those methods vary depending on the particular case.  As such, each case study must be carefully designed with several considerations in mind.  Before discussing those considerations, it is helpful to examine the definition of “case study.”

Case Study: A Working Definition

To begin with, case study methodology is inherently constructivist.  In a constructivist approach to any phenomenon, reality is seen as being socially constructed, and relative to an individual’s lived social experience (Baxter and Jack, 2008).  Because a case study “investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the ‘case’) in depth and within its real-world context,” the background and experiences of the case’s key players are an integral part of the case (Yin, 2014, pp. 16-17; Gillham, 2000).  In other words, it is impossible to separate an individual from his or her socially constructed reality.

Second, a case study uses several sources and methods to obtain data about the phenomenon under investigation (Yin, 2014).  In fact, the researcher may not be fully aware of what defines the particular case under study until all sources and methods have been thoroughly examined, and the data triangulated (Ragin and Becker, 1992).   As Masoner (1988) pointed out, “the uniqueness of a case study lies not so much in the methods employed (although these are important) as in the questions asked and their relationship to the end product” (p. 15).

Finally, a case study is flexible.  A case study can (1) be adapted to multiple disciplinary and philosophical perspectives; (2) be used to test or build theory; (3) include either qualitative or quantitative data, or both; and (4) accommodate more than one sampling method (Masoner, 1988).  Further, a case study can be used to examine current, observable phenomena or to reconstruct a particular historical case (George and Bennett, 2005).  A case study may include only one, or a combination, of these features.

Given the five interdependent features, case study is a complex approach.  However, Feagin, Orum, and Sjoberg (1991) provide a good working definition of the case study that demonstrates this complexity while still being succinct: “A case study is here defined as an in-depth, multifaceted investigation, using qualitative research methods, of a single social phenomenon.  The study is conducted in great detail and often relies on the use of several data sources” (p. 2).

Planning and Designing a Case Study

After a working definition has been established, considerations for planning and designing a case study can be explored.  It is important to know when to use a case study, as opposed to another type of method or design.  To this end, Yin (2014) provides some specific guidelines for when a case study might be the optimal design:  a case study is advantageous when “a ‘how’ or ‘why’ question is being asked about a contemporary set of events, over which a researcher has little or no control” (p. 14).  Yin recommends conducting a thorough literature review on the proposed research topic in order to determine what is not yet known about the topic, and to formulate a research question.  Once the question has been formalized, the guidelines above can be used in order to determine whether or not a case study is feasible.

Assuming that a case study is determined to be optimal, the researcher must then carefully design his or her study.  This involves consideration of five key components: “(1) a case study’s questions; (2) its propositions, if any; (3) its unit(s) of analysis; (4) the logic linking the data to the propositions; and (5) the criteria for interpreting the findings” (Yin, 2014, p. 29).  With these components in place, the ideal type and category of case study for the proposed research should begin to emerge.

Categories and Types of Case Studies

            Case studies can be classified by both type and category.  The type of case study refers to its scope: how many individual cases are under study and how many units of analysis are included.  The category of case study refers to the study’s purpose: why the researcher is conducting the investigation.

Categories. There are two main categories of case studies: single-case and multiple-case.  Each of these can then also be either holistic or embedded.  A single-case holistic study would look at a single case and a single unit of analysis.  A single-case embedded study would examine a single case, but have multiple units of analysis.  Similarly, a multiple-case holistic study would look at multiple cases, but only a single unit of analysis for each case.  A multiple-case embedded study would examine multiple cases and multiple units of analysis.  In multiple-case studies, the units of analysis would be the same across sites, or cases.  Single-case studies are appropriate when the case is either “critical, unusual, common, revelatory, or longitudinal” (Yin, 2014, p. 51).  Multiple-case designs are appropriate when the researcher wants to show replication, or make a more compelling case in addressing the research questions (Yin, 2014).           Types. In addition to these categories, there are also five types of case studies: exploratory/evaluative, descriptive/illustrative, explanatory/interpretive, intrinsic, and instrumental.  The type of case study one chooses to conduct depends on the purpose of the study, and on the research questions (Baxter and Jack, 2008).

The first three types of case studies are defined in Yin (2014).  The exploratory, or evaluative, case study is intended to serve primarily as the basis for further research.  This type of study explores a phenomenon in depth in order to elicit research questions of interest.  The descriptive, or illustrative, case study is designed to observe and, subsequently, describe some event or behavior “in its real-world context” (Yin, 2014, p. 238).  Finally, the explanatory, or interpretive, case study seeks to discover causation or correlation.

The other two types of case studies are defined by Stake (1995).  An intrinsic case study is best used when the intention of the researcher is to gain a more complete understanding of the phenomenon in question in that particular case.  An instrumental case study, conversely, should be used when the case itself is not the center of interest, and the focus is not on understanding or even generalizing results.  Instead, it is useful when the researcher is looking for some specific insight or working on refinement of a particular theory.   Once the appropriate category and type of case study have been chosen, data collection methods should be considered.

Data Collection Methods in Case Studies

Case studies are unique in that data collection methods are almost unlimited.  However, not all methods are appropriate for all cases.  The research design and research questions should be carefully considered when determining which methods should be used.  Also, though the case study has historically been primarily qualitative in nature, quantitative methods can be employed in complement to qualitative methods.  For example, a survey can be useful as a starting point for a case study.

Surveys.  A survey can be especially useful as a first step in designing a case study.  A survey is designed to collect general information, under natural conditions, on particular variables for a specific sample.  Ideally, survey samples are chosen such that the information collected can be considered to be generalizable to the larger population (Roberts, 1999).  However, the use of the survey as a starting point for a case study does not need such considerations in design, as the population of the case study is the population of interest, and the purpose of conducting the survey is to uncover topics of interest for further exploration using qualitative methods, such as interviews and observations.

Interviews.  “The qualitative interview is the most common and one of the most important data gathering tools in qualitative research” (Myers and Newman, 2007, p. 3).  Interviews can be structured, semi-structured, or unstructured.  A structured interview follows a very specific set of questions and does not deviate to topics outside of those questions.  A semi-structured interview, on the other hand, consists of a series of open-ended questions with room to move off topic if deemed of interest.  Finally, an unstructured interview often begins with a topic of interest about which the researcher wants further information.  Many times, these unstructured interviews begin with a researcher’s field notes following a period of observation (DiCicco‐Bloom, B. and Crabtree, B. F., 2006).

Observations.  Yin (2014) describes two types of observations: direct and participant.  In direct observation, the researcher positions herself such that she can unobtrusively observe the phenomenon in question, leaving her free to make notes on what she observes.  Notes may be taken freely, or a more structured form may be provided for data collection.  Participant observation, as its name suggests, occurs when the researcher participates in the phenomenon, and may or may not be able to take notes while participating.  Gillham (2000) further describes direct observation as “mainly analytical/categorical” and participant observation as “mainly descriptive/interpretive” (p. 52).  There is, of course, room for overlap between the two.

Textual evidence.  Questioning and observing the participants in a particular case often tells a compelling story, but sometimes additional evidence is needed to corroborate that story or expand it.  This is where documents and archival records can be useful.  Reviewing such textual evidence can help to verify factual information gathered during an interview or observation.  Inferences can also be drawn from certain documents or records and used as indications that there is a need to investigate further.  Finally, textual evidence can be used as a preliminary overview of a particular organization or case (Yin, 2014).

Physical artifacts.  One final method of data collection worth mentioning is the study of physical artifacts.  Though traditionally used primarily in anthropological research, technology and its products (computer code, activity logs, etc.) can be considered physical artifacts and may be relevant to the case under study (Yin, 2014).

Rigor in the Case Study

            The case study has been criticized as a research design for its perceived lack of rigor (Yin 2014).  According to Gibbert, Ruigrok, and Wicki (2008), this concern can be addressed by vigilant attention to study design and careful consideration of the four criteria for establishing rigor, as defined by the positivist tradition: construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability.

Construct Validity. Construct validity refers to the use of appropriate “operational measures for the concepts being studied” (Yin, 2014, p. 46).  Establishing construct validity is particularly challenging because a case study is often exploratory, and operationalization must occur during the course of the study.  For this reason, the researcher must be extra diligent about refraining “from subjective judgments during the periods of research design and data collection” (Riege, 2003, p. 80).  Further measures for increasing construct validity include the following: using a variety of sources to support findings, connecting evidence to form a chain that can be followed logically, and having case study participants review data for inconsistencies and misunderstandings (Riege, 2003; Yin, 2014).

Internal Validity. Internal validity deals with the establishment of causation.  Traditionally, the biggest challenge in establishing internal validity is in ferreting out spurious relationships that do not actually show causation (Yin, 2014).  Case study research, however, is more concerned with establishing the ability to make inferences from the case that will hold up in the general population (Riege, 2003).   Measures for increasing internal validity include pattern matching, explanation building, addressing alternate explanations, and using logic models (Riege, 2003; Yin, 2014).

External Validity. External validity involves the generalizability of research findings, and can be addressed initially by properly constructed research questions.  Specifically, “how” and “why” questions should be included in order to arrive “at an analytic generalization” (Yin, 2014, p. 48).  Other ways to increase external validity are to employ theory in the design of single-case studies, and replication logic in multiple-case studies, as well as to clearly define the scope of the study (Riege, 2003; Yin, 2014).

Reliability. Reliability refers to the ability to repeat research and get the same, or reasonably similar, results.  The concern when dealing with qualitative research is the subjectivity of the researchers.  Ways to circumvent this concern involve keeping detailed records and accounts of the research.  Yin (2014) suggests using a “case study protocol” and developing and maintaining a “case study database” (p. 49).

Questions

1. Design a case study using Yin’s five key components. Be sure to include the rationale for the type and category of case chosen, as well as the methods.
2. Describe appropriate methods of analysis for case study research.
3. Describe the compatibility between information worlds and case study research in the context of a specific research problem. Specify the problem and research questions, then describe how you would use case study and information worlds to approach the research.
4. Choose two examples of case study research in education and/or LIS. Compare, contrast, and critique the studies and describe how you would have approached the case differently, if applicable.

 

 

References

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.  Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol13/iss4/2

DiCicco‐Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical education, 40(4), 314-321.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. doi:10.2307/258557

Feagin, J. R., Orum, A. M., & Sjoberg, G. (1991). A Case for the case study. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? The American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–354.

Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. (2008). What Passes as a Rigorous Case Study? Strategic Management Journal, 29(13), 1465–1474.

Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. London ; New York: Continuum.

Jaeger, P. T., & Burnett, G. (2010). Information worlds: Social context, technology, and  information behavior in the age of the Internet. New York, NY: Routledge.

Masoner, M. (1988). An audit of the case study method. New York: Praeger.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education : a qualitative approach (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Myers, M. D., & Newman, M. (2007). The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft. Information and organization, 17(1), 2-26.

Ragin, C. C., & Becker, H. S. (Eds.). (1992). What is a case?: exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge university press.

Riege, A.M. (2003). Validity and reliability tests in case study research: a literature review with “hands‐on” applications for each research phase. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6(2), 75–86. http://doi.org/10.1108/13522750310470055

Roberts, E. S. (1999). In defence of the survey method: An illustration from a study of user information satisfaction. Accounting & Finance, 39(1), 53-77.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research : design and methods (Fifth edition.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Ethics can be a tricky business.  On the one hand, we have constructed society such that there are certain expectations that everyone understands, for the most part.  On the other hand, there is a lot of ambiguity in certain areas.  For example, the article on fabrication . . . I can understand the need to protect sensitive information and the identities of those who provided that information, but the “by-the-book” rigid ethicist (yes, I made that word up) in me says that it’s not okay because it’s a type of falsification of results.  It’s a real conundrum.  If you follow the linguistic style and maintain the same general content, it follows that fabrication might be okay.  But what if you don’t do such a good job?  I’m not sure of the answer here, but it is definitely food for thought.

The example given in class was also interesting.  I haven’t had a lot of experience with grant writing, but I wonder if constructing the grant with some wiggle room for such occasions is possible.  Of course, in this case, promises were made to the researchers that were not kept, but I’m thinking more generally.  How can we word our funding requests with just enough vagueness to allow for instances such as this one?  Again, food for thought, and something to keep in mind going forward academically.

Case Study

A case study is unique in that it can be thought of both as a method, and as a research design, depending on the school of thought to which one subscribes.  Though it is named here as the former, the following explanation is constructed such that it is treated as the latter.  The author understands that a case study consists of multiple methods, but that those methods vary depending on the particular case.  As such, each case study must be carefully designed with several considerations in mind.  Before discussing those considerations, it is helpful to examine the definition of “case study.”

Case Study: A Working Definition

To begin with, case study methodology is inherently constructivist.  In a constructivist approach to any phenomenon, reality is seen as being socially constructed, and relative to an individual’s lived social experience (Baxter and Jack, 2008).  Because a case study “investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the ‘case’) in depth and within its real-world context,” the background and experiences of the case’s key players are an integral part of the case (Yin, 2014, pp. 16-17; Gillham, 2000).  In other words, it is impossible to separate an individual from his or her socially constructed reality.

Second, a case study uses several sources and methods to obtain data about the phenomenon under investigation (Yin, 2014).  In fact, the researcher may not be fully aware of what defines the particular case under study until all sources and methods have been thoroughly examined, and the data triangulated (Ragin and Becker, 1992).   As Masoner (1988) pointed out, “the uniqueness of a case study lies not so much in the methods employed (although these are important) as in the questions asked and their relationship to the end product” (p. 15).

Finally, a case study is flexible.  A case study can (1) be adapted to multiple disciplinary and philosophical perspectives; (2) be used to test or build theory; (3) include either qualitative or quantitative data, or both; and (4) accommodate more than one sampling method (Masoner, 1988).  Further, a case study can be used to examine current, observable phenomena or to reconstruct a particular historical case (George and Bennett, 2005).  A case study may include only one, or a combination, of these features.

Given the five interdependent features, case study is a complex approach.  However, Feagin, Orum, and Sjoberg (1991) provide a good working definition of the case study that demonstrates this complexity while still being succinct: “A case study is here defined as an in-depth, multifaceted investigation, using qualitative research methods, of a single social phenomenon.  The study is conducted in great detail and often relies on the use of several data sources” (p. 2).

Planning and Designing a Case Study

After a working definition has been established, considerations for planning and designing a case study can be explored.  It is important to know when to use a case study, as opposed to another type of method or design.  To this end, Yin (2014) provides some specific guidelines for when a case study might be the optimal design:  a case study is advantageous when “a ‘how’ or ‘why’ question is being asked about a contemporary set of events, over which a researcher has little or no control” (p. 14).  Yin recommends conducting a thorough literature review on the proposed research topic in order to determine what is not yet known about the topic, and to formulate a research question.  Once the question has been formalized, the guidelines above can be used in order to determine whether or not a case study is feasible.

Assuming that a case study is determined to be optimal, the researcher must then carefully design his or her study.  This involves consideration of five key components: “(1) a case study’s questions; (2) its propositions, if any; (3) its unit(s) of analysis; (4) the logic linking the data to the propositions; and (5) the criteria for interpreting the findings” (Yin, 2014, p. 29).  With these components in place, the ideal type and category of case study for the proposed research should begin to emerge.

Categories and Types of Case Studies

            Case studies can be classified by both type and category.  The type of case study refers to its scope: how many individual cases are under study and how many units of analysis are included.  The category of case study refers to the study’s purpose: why the researcher is conducting the investigation.

Categories. There are two main categories of case studies: single-case and multiple-case.  Each of these can then also be either holistic or embedded.  A single-case holistic study would look at a single case and a single unit of analysis.  A single-case embedded study would examine a single case, but have multiple units of analysis.  Similarly, a multiple-case holistic study would look at multiple cases, but only a single unit of analysis for each case.  A multiple-case embedded study would examine multiple cases and multiple units of analysis.  In multiple-case studies, the units of analysis would be the same across sites, or cases.  Single-case studies are appropriate when the case is either “critical, unusual, common, revelatory, or longitudinal” (Yin, 2014, p. 51).  Multiple-case designs are appropriate when the researcher wants to show replication, or make a more compelling case in addressing the research questions (Yin, 2014).           Types. In addition to these categories, there are also five types of case studies: exploratory/evaluative, descriptive/illustrative, explanatory/interpretive, intrinsic, and instrumental.  The type of case study one chooses to conduct depends on the purpose of the study, and on the research questions (Baxter and Jack, 2008).

The first three types of case studies are defined in Yin (2014).  The exploratory, or evaluative, case study is intended to serve primarily as the basis for further research.  This type of study explores a phenomenon in depth in order to elicit research questions of interest.  The descriptive, or illustrative, case study is designed to observe and, subsequently, describe some event or behavior “in its real-world context” (Yin, 2014, p. 238).  Finally, the explanatory, or interpretive, case study seeks to discover causation or correlation.

The other two types of case studies are defined by Stake (1995).  An intrinsic case study is best used when the intention of the researcher is to gain a more complete understanding of the phenomenon in question in that particular case.  An instrumental case study, conversely, should be used when the case itself is not the center of interest, and the focus is not on understanding or even generalizing results.  Instead, it is useful when the researcher is looking for some specific insight or working on refinement of a particular theory.   Once the appropriate category and type of case study have been chosen, data collection methods should be considered.

Data Collection Methods in Case Studies

Case studies are unique in that data collection methods are almost unlimited.  However, not all methods are appropriate for all cases.  The research design and research questions should be carefully considered when determining which methods should be used.  Also, though the case study has historically been primarily qualitative in nature, quantitative methods can be employed in complement to qualitative methods.  For example, a survey can be useful as a starting point for a case study.

Surveys.  A survey can be especially useful as a first step in designing a case study.  A survey is designed to collect general information, under natural conditions, on particular variables for a specific sample.  Ideally, survey samples are chosen such that the information collected can be considered to be generalizable to the larger population (Roberts, 1999).  However, the use of the survey as a starting point for a case study does not need such considerations in design, as the population of the case study is the population of interest, and the purpose of conducting the survey is to uncover topics of interest for further exploration using qualitative methods, such as interviews and observations.

Interviews.  “The qualitative interview is the most common and one of the most important data gathering tools in qualitative research” (Myers and Newman, 2007, p. 3).  Interviews can be structured, semi-structured, or unstructured.  A structured interview follows a very specific set of questions and does not deviate to topics outside of those questions.  A semi-structured interview, on the other hand, consists of a series of open-ended questions with room to move off topic if deemed of interest.  Finally, an unstructured interview often begins with a topic of interest about which the researcher wants further information.  Many times, these unstructured interviews begin with a researcher’s field notes following a period of observation (DiCicco‐Bloom, B. and Crabtree, B. F., 2006).

Observations.  Yin (2014) describes two types of observations: direct and participant.  In direct observation, the researcher positions herself such that she can unobtrusively observe the phenomenon in question, leaving her free to make notes on what she observes.  Notes may be taken freely, or a more structured form may be provided for data collection.  Participant observation, as its name suggests, occurs when the researcher participates in the phenomenon, and may or may not be able to take notes while participating.  Gillham (2000) further describes direct observation as “mainly analytical/categorical” and participant observation as “mainly descriptive/interpretive” (p. 52).  There is, of course, room for overlap between the two.

Textual evidence.  Questioning and observing the participants in a particular case often tells a compelling story, but sometimes additional evidence is needed to corroborate that story or expand it.  This is where documents and archival records can be useful.  Reviewing such textual evidence can help to verify factual information gathered during an interview or observation.  Inferences can also be drawn from certain documents or records and used as indications that there is a need to investigate further.  Finally, textual evidence can be used as a preliminary overview of a particular organization or case (Yin, 2014).

Physical artifacts.  One final method of data collection worth mentioning is the study of physical artifacts.  Though traditionally used primarily in anthropological research, technology and its products (computer code, activity logs, etc.) can be considered physical artifacts and may be relevant to the case under study (Yin, 2014).

Rigor in the Case Study

            The case study has been criticized as a research design for its perceived lack of rigor (Yin 2014).  According to Gibbert, Ruigrok, and Wicki (2008), this concern can be addressed by vigilant attention to study design and careful consideration of the four criteria for establishing rigor, as defined by the positivist tradition: construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability.

Construct Validity. Construct validity refers to the use of appropriate “operational measures for the concepts being studied” (Yin, 2014, p. 46).  Establishing construct validity is particularly challenging because a case study is often exploratory, and operationalization must occur during the course of the study.  For this reason, the researcher must be extra diligent about refraining “from subjective judgments during the periods of research design and data collection” (Riege, 2003, p. 80).  Further measures for increasing construct validity include the following: using a variety of sources to support findings, connecting evidence to form a chain that can be followed logically, and having case study participants review data for inconsistencies and misunderstandings (Riege, 2003; Yin, 2014).

Internal Validity. Internal validity deals with the establishment of causation.  Traditionally, the biggest challenge in establishing internal validity is in ferreting out spurious relationships that do not actually show causation (Yin, 2014).  Case study research, however, is more concerned with establishing the ability to make inferences from the case that will hold up in the general population (Riege, 2003).   Measures for increasing internal validity include pattern matching, explanation building, addressing alternate explanations, and using logic models (Riege, 2003; Yin, 2014).

External Validity. External validity involves the generalizability of research findings, and can be addressed initially by properly constructed research questions.  Specifically, “how” and “why” questions should be included in order to arrive “at an analytic generalization” (Yin, 2014, p. 48).  Other ways to increase external validity are to employ theory in the design of single-case studies, and replication logic in multiple-case studies, as well as to clearly define the scope of the study (Riege, 2003; Yin, 2014).

Reliability. Reliability refers to the ability to repeat research and get the same, or reasonably similar, results.  The concern when dealing with qualitative research is the subjectivity of the researchers.  Ways to circumvent this concern involve keeping detailed records and accounts of the research.  Yin (2014) suggests using a “case study protocol” and developing and maintaining a “case study database” (p. 49).

Questions

1. Design a case study using Yin’s five key components. Be sure to include the rationale for the type and category of case chosen, as well as the methods.
2. Describe appropriate methods of analysis for case study research.
3. Describe the compatibility between information worlds and case study research in the context of a specific research problem. Specify the problem and research questions, then describe how you would use case study and information worlds to approach the research.
4. Choose two examples of case study research in education and/or LIS. Compare, contrast, and critique the studies and describe how you would have approached the case differently, if applicable.

 

 

References

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.  Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol13/iss4/2

DiCicco‐Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical education, 40(4), 314-321.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. doi:10.2307/258557

Feagin, J. R., Orum, A. M., & Sjoberg, G. (1991). A Case for the case study. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? The American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–354.

Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. (2008). What Passes as a Rigorous Case Study? Strategic Management Journal, 29(13), 1465–1474.

Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. London ; New York: Continuum.

Jaeger, P. T., & Burnett, G. (2010). Information worlds: Social context, technology, and  information behavior in the age of the Internet. New York, NY: Routledge.

Masoner, M. (1988). An audit of the case study method. New York: Praeger.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education : a qualitative approach (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Myers, M. D., & Newman, M. (2007). The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft. Information and organization, 17(1), 2-26.

Ragin, C. C., & Becker, H. S. (Eds.). (1992). What is a case?: exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge university press.

Riege, A.M. (2003). Validity and reliability tests in case study research: a literature review with “hands‐on” applications for each research phase. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6(2), 75–86. http://doi.org/10.1108/13522750310470055

Roberts, E. S. (1999). In defence of the survey method: An illustration from a study of user information satisfaction. Accounting & Finance, 39(1), 53-77.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research : design and methods (Fifth edition.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

This week’s in-class exercise was thought-provoking, and much harder than it sounded on the surface.  I remember discussing content analysis in Research Methods almost two years ago and thinking, “Oh, that sounds like easy research.”  Ha!  Contextualizing and conceptualizing content analysis research is far from easy, even when you do so using your very specific research interests.  As I may be doing some content analysis in my own dissertation case study, this was a good opportunity for me to see what it’s really like.

As with coding, context is very important in content analysis.  I think it is especially important that the researcher have a firm grasp of the phenomenon under consideration before proceeding with analysis.  In other words, I don’t think you should just wake up one day and think, “Hey, I believe I’ll analyze some blogs about x even though I have absolutely no background in studying or understanding x.”  I believe, after completing the exercise yesterday, that a firm grounding in the history of the phenomenon is necessary to be able to frame your research.  If I had not been a school librarian, I don’t think I would have been able to do a very good job of framing my proposed content analysis yesterday, unless I had taken the time to read up on the topic thoroughly beforehand.  Of course, this is good advice no matter what methodology you choose.  Otherwise, you will just look foolish, right?

I feel like content analysis and open coding overlap in many ways, and it will be interesting to see which approach I choose to take in my dissertation research.  I feel like I need to do some more comparing and contrasting before I make a final decision, and perhaps I will end up using a hybrid of the two.  Right now, I lean toward open coding because of its flexibility, and because I know that I have the information worlds codebook to guide me; but, as always, I remain open to the possibilities.

I was excited to see and read the article on coding, as I will need that particular skill during my dissertation work (as I’m sure many of us will).  Actually doing the coding was less exciting, and more on the tedious side.  However, I think some of that has to do with it not being my own research.  I definitely learned that I need either a good amount of control over my data from the beginning, or a very strong interest in whatever I’m coding.

I think I will definitely be a proponent of the Kazmer method of starting with the word by word coding and then moving more to the bigger units as I go along.  I can see where it would be beneficial.  I also appreciated the memoing when first looking at data to code, as it made me think about how I wanted to approach the information.  Working with Information Worlds Theory, I will have a codebook, but I think it will help if I first read through and memo without the codebook in front of me to get some initial ideas, and then go back and look at those memos with codebook in hand.

In short, reading about and then practicing coding gave me some very good ideas for my own data analysis, as well as my data collection.  A resounding theme throughout this class has been to be very detailed and thorough, and this was yet another lesson in why that is important.

Method Statement: Case Study

A case study is unique in that it can be thought of both as a method, and as a research design, depending on the school of thought to which one subscribes.  Though it is named here as the former, the following explanation is constructed such that it is treated, essentially, as the latter.  The author understands that a case study consists of multiple methods, but that those methods vary depending on the particular case.  As such, each case study must be carefully designed with several considerations in mind.  Before discussing those considerations, it is helpful to examine the definition of “case study.”

Case Study: A Working Definition

To begin with, case study methodology is inherently constructivist.  In a constructivist approach to any phenomenon, reality is seen as being socially constructed, and relative to an individual’s lived social experience (Baxter and Jack, 2008).  Because a case study “investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the ‘case’) in depth and within its real-world context,” the background and experiences of the case’s key players are an integral part of the case (Yin, 2014, pp. 16-17; Gillham, 2000).  In other words, it is impossible to separate an individual from his or her socially constructed reality.

Second, a case study takes as its subject a small entity which is thought to be representative of a larger group of entities.  The entity can be studied at a certain point in time, or longitudinally over a specified amount of time, but always in that entity’s natural setting (Gerring, 2004; Eisenhardt, 1989; Lee, 1989).

Third, a case study uses several sources and methods to obtain data about the phenomenon under review (Yin, 2014).  In fact, the researcher may not be fully aware of what defines the particular case under study until all sources and methods have been thoroughly examined, and the data triangulated (Ragin and Becker, 1992).   As Masoner (1988) points out, “the uniqueness of a case study lies not so much in the methods employed (although these are important) as in the questions asked and their relationship to the end product” (p. 15).

Finally, a case study is flexible.  A case study can (1) be adapted to multiple disciplinary and philosophical perspectives; (2) be used to test or build theory; (3) include either qualitative or quantitative data, or both; and (4) accommodate more than one sampling method (Masoner, 1988).  Further, a case study can be used to examine current, observable phenomena or to reconstruct a particular historical case (George and Bennett, 2005).

It is clear from the above, that the case study is a complex research method.  However, Feagin, Orum, and Sjoberg (1991) provide a good working definition of the case study that demonstrates this complexity while still being succinct: “A case study is here defined as an in-depth, multifaceted investigation, using qualitative research methods, of a single social phenomenon.  The study is conducted in great detail and often relies on the use of several data sources” (p. 2).

Planning and Designing a Case Study

Now that a working definition has been established, considerations for planning and designing a case study should be explored.  It is important to know when to use a case study, as opposed to another type of method or design.  To this end, Yin (2014) provides some specific guidelines for when a case study might be the optimal design:  a case study is advantageous when “a ‘how’ or ‘why’ question is being asked about a contemporary set of events, over which a researcher has little or no control” (p. 14).  Yin recommends conducting a thorough literature review on the proposed research topic in order to determine what is not yet known about the topic, and to formulate a research question.  Once the question has been formalized, the guidelines above can be used in order to determine whether or not a case study is feasible.

Assuming that a case study is determined to be optimal, the researcher must then carefully design his or her study.  This involves careful consideration of five key components: “(1) a case study’s questions; (2) its propositions, if any; (3) its unit(s) of analysis; (4) the logic linking the data to the propositions; and (5) the criteria for interpreting the findings” (Yin, 2014, p. 29).  With these components in place, the ideal type and category of case study for the proposed research should begin to emerge.

Types and Categories of Case Studies

There are two main types of case studies: single-case and multiple-case.  Each of these can then also be either holistic or embedded.  A single-case holistic study would look at a single case and a single unit of analysis.  A single-case embedded study would examine a single case, but have multiple units of analysis.  Similarly, a multiple-case holistic study would look at multiple cases, but only a single unit of analysis for each case.  A multiple-case embedded study would examine multiple cases and multiple units of analysis.  In multiple-case studies, the units of analysis would be the same across sites, or cases.  Single-case studies are appropriate when the case is either “critical, unusual, common, revelatory, or longitudinal” (Yin, 2014, p. 51).  Multiple-case designs are appropriate when the researcher wants to show replication, or make a more compelling case in addressing the research questions (Yin, 2014).

 

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The qualitative report, 13(4), 544-559.

This article presents an easy to follow summary of qualitative case study methodology.  The authors break it down into components similar to Yin’s classic book on the subject.  This is a condensed version and general overview.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. doi:10.2307/258557

Eisenhardt’s paper focuses on the process of inducting theory from a case study and follows the process from research question to closure.  The article covers problem definition, construct validation, within-case analysis, and replication logic.  The process is described as iterative, and a process for evaluating such research is set forth.

Feagin, J. R., Orum, A. M., & Sjoberg, G. (1991). A Case for the case study. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

This book is a collection of essays about case study.  It focuses on the nature of the case study, the approach, methodological issues, and the application of case study research in social research.

George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

This book discusses case studies and their relationship to theory development.  However, it also covers how to design and carry out a case study, as well as several methods of interpreting results.

Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? The American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–354.

Here, Gerring presents a review of what a case study is and what it is not.  He discusses the method’s strengths and weaknesses, and compares single- and cross-unit research designs.

Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. London ; New York: Continuum.

This is another general book on case study methods and research.  It gives a basic overview of case studies and the methods involved therein.

Masoner, M. (1988). An audit of the case study method. New York: Praeger.

Masoner’s book is essentially a critique of case study methodology which includes historical perspectives and anecdotal evidence to support its use.

Ragin, C. C., & Becker, H. S. (Eds.). (1992). What is a case?: exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge university press.

In this book, the authors seek to make a case for what actually is/should be considered a case.  They discuss what cases are and do, and they analyze research experiences in search of a good definition of “case.”

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research : design and methods (Fifth edition.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

This is Yin’s classic book on case study research.  Case study methodology is dissected and explained in detail.

Case Study Design: Implementation of a Schoolwide Reading Program

Study Question: How does a school go about implementing a schoolwide reading program at the junior high school level?  What role does each employee play, and how do they feel about those roles?  What works and doesn’t work during the process?

Study Propositions: None.  Exploratory Case.

Unit of Analysis: a suburban junior high school serving grades 7-8

Data Collection: Data collection would consist of examining internal documents regarding the reading program, observation of the reading program in action, and interviews with the employees of the school (including both administration and instructional personnel).

Data Analysis:  Documents would be analyzed for content, and field notes/interview transcripts would be analyzed and coded, looking for emerging themes.

Alternative Methods:  If I were to conduct this study as, say, a survey, I would be able to gather data from a larger group of people.  I could distribute the survey electronically across the U.S. and even internationally, and get a broader view of the issue.  However, the data gathered would not be as rich as what I could get from a case study.  The case study is more narrow in scope, but would be more in depth, and possibly reveal themes that would not emerge in a survey.  Further, using multiple methods in the case study would allow for triangulation of data that a simple survey could not provide.  As you know, I plan to use a case study research design for my dissertation.  I chose the case study precisely because of it’s flexibility of methods and ability to gather rich data.

In this week’s exercise, I asked people about how they balance work and life.  During the course of the interviews, several things occurred to me.

First, it is very important to choose a population for whom your topic is relevant and engaging.  As we discussed in class, you would not ask a group of non-runners about how they structure their running schedule.  I got good responses because I tailored my question to the population.  When the research question comes before the population, as it does much of the time, it is important to seek out the appropriate population in order to get meaningful data.

Second, I found that the critical incident question, for me, would be better used as one of many questions rather than a stand-alone.  However, there might be instances where this would not be the case.  For example, suppose one were to interview eye witnesses to JFK’s assassination.  Probes might still be needed to get more detail during the course of the interview, but the initial question would very likely need to be a critical incident type question.

Third, as I also mentioned in class, my experience with I-Corps taught me a number of things about interviewing: it is best to have more than one interviewer if possible, because different people notice different things; it is always a good idea to debrief immediately after an interview, especially one where recording was not possible; the more thorough your notes are, the easier time you will have with the debriefing; and, it is helpful to practice both with familiar and unfamiliar faces before the “real” interviews begin.

Fourth, and perhaps the most important thing that I learned today, is to know thyself.  Dawn mentioned not thinking she was a good interviewer (she was!) and Dr. K mentioned that she could only do 1-2 research interviews per day and Tim mentioned that he was not that great with open-ended questioning.  These are the kinds of things we need to discover about ourselves in order to make the appropriate adjustments to get optimal results, or to choose a different methodological approach for our research.

Ultimately, conducting interviews today got me excited all over again to start my own dissertation research.  Granted, that’s probably a good year away, but I was reminded how much I actually enjoy talking to people and asking questions.  It was sort of an affirmation that I’m headed in the right direction.

Methods Statement Outline: Case Study

I. Definition of Case Study
A. General Definition
1. Definitions from the Literature
2. Working Definition
B. Case Study as Research Method
C. When to Use Case Study
II. Types of Case Studies
A. Single-Case Designs
1. Holistic (single unit of analysis)
2. Embedded (multiple units of analysis)
B. Multiple-Case Designs
1. Holistic (single unit of analysis)
2. Embedded (multiple units of analysis)
C. Categories of Case Studies
1. Exploratory
2. Descriptive
3. Explanatory
4. Interpretive
5. Evaluative
6. Intrinsic
7. Instrumental
8. Collective
9. Illustrative
10. Cumulative
11. Critical Instance
III. Designing a Case Study
A. Research Design
B. Data Collection
1. Collecting Textual Evidence
a. Documentation
b. Archival Records
2. Conducting Interviews
3. Observation
a. Direct
b. Participant
4. Physical Artifacts
C. Data Analysis
1. Pattern Matching
2. Explanation Building
3. Time-Series Analysis
4. Logic Models
5. Cross-Case Synthesis

IV. Advantages and Disadvantages of Case Study
A. Validity
1. Construct Validity
2. Internal Validity
3. External Validity
B. Reliability
C. Manageability
D. Rigor
E. Flexibility
F. Generalizability
G. Ethical Considerations

Case and Case Study Definitions & Initial Notes

Yin, 2014, pp 16-17:

1. A case study is an empirical inquiry 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.

2. A case study inquiry

• Copes with the technically distinctive situation in which there will be many more variables of interest than data points, and as one result
• Relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to converge in a triangulating fashion, and as another result
• Benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide data collection and analysis

Gerring, 2004, p. 342

An intensive study of a single unit for the purpose of understanding a larger class of (similar) units.  A unit connotes a spatially bounded phenomenon—e.g., a nation-state, revolution, political party, election, or person—observed at a single point in time or over some delimited period of time.

Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 534

A research strategy which focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single settings.

 

Lee, 1989, pp. 119-120

“organizational case study” is (1) the intensive study of a single case, where (2) the case consists of the entire configuration of individuals, grous, and social structure in the setting of an organization, and (3) the case researchers passively observes the rich details of events in the way that they naturally unfold in their natural, organizational setting.

 Baxter & Jack, 2008, p. 545

Case study takes constructivist approach.

 Ragin & Becker, 1992, p. 3

The term “case” is one of many basic methodological constructs that have become distorted or corrupted over time.  The typical pattern is for a key methodological term to gain multiple and sometimes contradictory meanings. (p. 6) Researchers probably will not know what their cases are until the research, including the task of writing up the results is virtually completed.  What it is a case of will coalesce gradually, sometimes catalytically, and the final realization of the case’s nature may be the most important part of the interaction between ideas and evidence.  (p. 9) see Table I.1 about how researches answer “what is a case?”

 Masoner, 1988, p. 2

A case contains episodic information.  Uses problem-specific (situational) knowledge.

Case study is a basic design that can accommodate a variety of disciplinary perspectives, as well as philosophical perspectives on the nature of research itself.  A case study can test theory or build theory, incorporate random or purposive sampling, and include quantitative and qualitative data. (p. 7) . . . a case study concentrates on many, if not all, the variables present in a single unit. (p. 9)  . . . a case study is an examination of a specific phenomenon such as a program, an event, a person, a process, an institution, or a social group.  (p. 10) . . . the case is identified as a bounded system.  (p. 11) characteristics of a case study: particularistic, descriptive, heuristic, and inductive. (p. 14) . . . the uniqueness of a case study lies not so much in the methods employed (although these are important) as in the questions asked and their relationship to the end product. (p. 15) Case study research is not the same as casework, case method, case history, or case record. (p. 16)  . . . the qualitative case study can be defined as an intensive, holistic description and analysis of a single entity, phenomenon, or social unit.  (p. 16) . . . in a qualitative approach to research the paramount objective is to understand the meaning of an experience . . . and strives to understand how all the parts work together to form a whole. (p. 17) idea of multiple realities/subjective

Feagin et al., 1991, p. 2

A case study is here defined as an in-depth, multifaceted investigation, using qualitative research methods, of a single social phenomenon.  The study is conducted in great detail and often relies on the use of several data sources.

Gillham, 2000, pp. 1-2

A case study investigates the following in order to answer specific research questions, and seeks a range of different kinds of evidence (which is there in the case setting, and has to be abstracted and collated to get the best possible answers to the research questions:

• A unit of human activity embedded in the real world;
• Which can only be studied or understood in context;
• Which exists in the here and now;
• That merges in with its context so that precise boundaries are difficult to draw.

No one kind or source of evidence is likely to be sufficient (or sufficiently valid) on its own.

George & Bennett, 2005, p. 5

The detailed examination of an aspect of a historical episode to develop or test historical explanations that may be generalizable to other events.

 

Bibliography of potential resources

 

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The qualitative report, 13(4), 544-559.

Becker, H. S., & Ragin, C. C. (1992). What is a case? : Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge [England]; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Bennett, A., & Elman, C. (2006). Qualitative research: Recent developments in case study methods. Annual Review of Political Science, 9(1), 455–476. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104918

Campbell, D. T. (1975). III. “Degrees of freedom” and the case study. Comparative Political Studies, 8(2), 178–193. doi:10.1177/001041407500800204

Darke, P., Shanks, G., & Broadbent, M. (1998). Successfully completing case study research: Combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism. Information Systems Journal, 8(4), 273–289. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2575.1998.00040.x

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications.

Dion, D. (2003). Evidence and inference in the comparative case study. Necessary conditions: Theory, methodology, and applications, 95-112.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. doi:10.2307/258557

Feagin, J. R., Orum, A. M., & Sjoberg, G. (1991). A Case for the case study. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. doi:10.1177/1077800405284363

George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

George, A. L., & McKeown, T. J. (1985). Case studies and theories of organizational decision making. Advances in information processing in organizations, 2(1), 21-58.

Gerring, J. (2001). Social science methodology : a criterial framework. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? The American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–354.

Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. (2008). What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal, 29(13), 1465–1474.

Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. London ; New York: Continuum.

Hamel, J., Dufour, S., & Fortin, D. (1993). Case study methods. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage Publications.

Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, Ma: Addison-Wesley.

Jorgensen, D. L., & Bickman, L. (1989). Participant observation : a methodology for human studies. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage Publications.

Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis : an introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Lee, A. S. (1989). Case studies as natural experiments. Human Relations, 42(2), 117–137. doi:10.1177/001872678904200202

Lee, T. W. (1999). Using qualitative methods in organizational research. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications.

Masoner, M. (1988). An audit of the case study method. New York: Praeger.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education : a qualitative approach (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B., & Merriam, S. B. C. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Mitchell, J. C. (1983). Case and situation analysis. The sociological review, 31(2), 187-211.

Riege, A.M. (2003). Validity and reliability tests in case study research: A literature review with “hands‐on” applications for each research phase. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6(2), 75–86. doi:10.1108/13522750310470055

Simons, H. (2009). Case study research in practice. SAGE publications.

Stake, R. E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7(2), 5–8. doi:10.2307/1174340

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Stoecker, R. (1991). Evaluating and rethinking the case study. The sociological review, 39(1), 88-112.

Tellis, W. (1997). Application of a case study methodology. The qualitative report, 3(3), 1-17.

Tellis, W. (1997, July). Introduction to case study [68 paragraphs]. The Qualitative Report [On-line serial], 3(2). Available: http://www.nova.edu.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/tellis1.html

Verschuren, P. (2003). Case study as a research strategy: Some ambiguities and opportunities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(2), 121–139. doi:10.1080/13645570110106154

Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study crisis: some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1), 58–65. doi:10.2307/2392599

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research : design and methods (Fifth edition.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

I positioned myself in Goldstein on the love seat near the puzzle table, where there is a puzzle in progress and someone’s coffee mug has been left.  The mug is insulated and purple.  The puzzle is of Pooh and friends in a field with balloons. I had a view of the entire area behind periodicals in the Goldstein library, bordered on the other side by windows.  Here is my summary paragraph:

It is clear from my observation that this area of Goldstein is a good place for a number of quiet activities: studying, note taking, lounging, sleeping, communicating via electronic device (as well as a place to charge said device), and reading.  It is also apparent that the area is considered a relatively safe place, as personal items were not watched closely, and even left for short periods of time.  Further, one might infer from the observation that the population that frequents the library is relatively young (perhaps undergrads), and primarily white.  Of course, this is just one day and one small sample.  Further, it can be surmised that the Goldstein staff, at least the one on the desk today, is industrious and conscientious.  In addition, those who make use of Goldstein tend to mind their own business, not being overly concerned when a new person enters the space, some not even looking up.

I learned upon trading, and then in class discussion, that it is important to remember that we do not all share the same frame of reference or share the same experiences.  Just because I know what Goldstein is doesn’t mean everyone else does.  Also, upon reflection, despite my best efforts to be incredibly detailed in my descriptions, there were still things I left out.  So, what the Forsythe article sought to illustrate is very salient: doing ethnography properly takes years of training to reach the level of competence at which one can consider oneself an ethnographer.