Discovering the Future of the Case Study

Method in Evaluation Research

ROBERT K. YIN

INTRODUCTION

The assignment for this article was to emulate the TRACES section of a journal issue
in the 21st century-to predict today’s excerpts that might be cited by future evaluators
as making a mark on the profession of evaluation. To identify such traces of case study
research-to be uncovered and cherished by evaluators in the 21st century-is like a theme
from the movie trilogy, “Back to the Future.” The challenge combines introspection (in
fact, once an accepted methodology in experimental psychology) and soothsaying (not
ever a methodology, to this writer’s knowledge). Ironically, the ultimate validation test
would be a re-reading of this article in the 21st century, but the article is not a guaranteed
part of the future, either.
A key perspective for this exercise is an appreciation of past case study research. After
a reminder about the past, I present three scenarios of the future and then really get into
crystal gazing by naming several works that might be part of a 21st century evaluator’s
“bookshelf” (a quaint colloquialism by the 21st century because all bookshelves will have
been replaced by portable, multi-media, and transparent electronic tiles).

WILLTHEFUTURELOOKBACKTOTHEPAST?

The premise on which all else follows is that future evaluators will indeed look back to
and cite the case study method in the first place. That such a premise might surprisingly
be invalid is supported by the checkered history of the ideas about the case study method,
traced authoritatively by Jennifer Platt (1992).
Doing a simple reference count, Platt found that the bulk of the textbooks on research
methods (18 out of 30)-published from 1970 to 1979-failed to mention case studies at
all. This absence was found despite the fact that case studies had been mentioned by nearly

Robert K. Yin, President, COSMOS Corporation, 7475 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

Evlluntion Practice, Vol. 15, No. 3, 1994, pp. 283-290. Copyright @ 1994 by JAI Press, Inc.
ISSN: 0886-1633 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

283
 EVALUATION PFWZTICE, 15(3), 1994

all textbooks in earlier decades (29 out of 31). However, although most of the references
in the 1920s and 1930s presented the case study as a full-fledged and important research
tool, Platt notes that, even by the 1950s the discussions were “. . almost entirely confined
to elementary textbooks” and not presented as “a focus of professional interest.” She then
found that texts in the 1960s gave case studies perfunctory attention only, with the
“orthodoxy” being to:
*. . .treat case studies not as a distinct method but merely as an optional part of
exploratory work in early stages of the complete research process.”

The orthodoxy’s limited view of the case study method led Platt to question whether
such usage should even have been included in her frequency counts. Only in the mid-1980s
does Platt find the trend reversing, with texts again citing the case study method.
The bulk of Platt’s article shows how this terminological vacillation did not altogether
reflect actual research practice. What happened, to make a long story short, is that the
Chicago School (of sociology) and its famous life histories (e.g., Shaw’s The Jack Roller,
1930) had made case study research eminent in the 1920s and 1930s. In later decades,
the term ‘participant-observation’ displaced ‘case study,’ with the emphasis on the mode
of data collection rather than on design. From the standpoint of evaluation practice, case
studies then became even less desirable during the initial surge of interest in quasi-
experimental designs and the negative characterization of the “one-shot case study”
(Campbell & Stanley, 1966). Not surprisingly, the 1970s saw little mention of case studies
in research textbooks. (I might note that, in evaluation textbooks, coverage has continued
to be spotty. For instance, none of Rossi and Freeman’s multiple editions of their popular
text-1979, 1982, 1985, 1989, and 1993-discusses the case study, much less as a method).
The later revival of interest in case study research also is traced by Platt. According
to her, this revival was partially instigated by Donald Campbell’s subsequent writings
(Campbell, 1975; and Cook & Campbell, 1979). But Platt argues that the case study method
also has been renewed by focusing on: the role of theories and rival theories; multiple
as well as single case designs; the problem of research design and not merely the conduct
of fieldwork; and a host of other features attributable to my book on case study research
(Yin, 1984, 1994a). Platt concludes that only now has the case study method started to
reenter the methodological mainstream.
This remarkable, earlier history of the ideas about the case study method therefore
brings pause to anyone taking the stability of social science research methods for granted.
And, the possibility remains that the case study method will again enter a penumbra, with
future investigators looking back not at the method as now espoused in 1994, but to other
trends that may only be starting now. This possibility is explored in Scenario I.

FUTURE SCENARIO I:
LOOKING BACK AND NOT SEEING A CASE STUDY METHOD

This first scenario indeed assumes that future evaluators will focus not on the case study
method, but on specific methodological techniques that are increasingly appearing in
today’s case study research. These techniques already are found in other forms of (non-
case study) research, so their complete assimilation by all types of research, including
quantitative and experimental methods, would not be surprising. As a result, the techniques
Future of CaseStudy Research 285

will be highly valued, but they will not be considered attributes of the case study method
alone. To this extent, the case study as a singular method will not necessarily have survived
into the future. The future of case study research would in this sense be a repeat of its
past, as traced by Platt.
At least seven such techniques can be identified now:

1. The use of multiple sources of evidence, in a converging manner;

2. The explicit specification and testing of hypotheses and rival hypotheses,
especially in lieu of control or comparison groups;
3. The dominance of deductive strategies, whereby research starts with theorizing;
4. Program logic models as a standard way of initiating a program evaluation;
5. Pattern-matching as a common strategy for data analysis;
6. Portfolio analysis, using qualitative criteria to differentially weigh the outcomes
from a project or the projects within a program; and
7. The use of replication logic, rather than aggregating data, when comparing the
results from multiple sites or cases.

Doing good case study evaluation requires these techniques (Yin, 1993a, 1994a). Their
usefulness, however, is potentially so great that all evaluation methods might eventually
incorporate them. Future Scenario I therefore conjectures that the most referenced future
works will be those displaying and practicing these techniques, not necessarily limited to
the case study method.
Of the seven, possibly the one with the greatest impact but that requires much further
development is the substitution of explicit rival hypotheses for the use of control or
comparison groups. In contemporary program interventions, such control or comparison
groups are becoming increasingly difficult, especially when the unit of analysis is an
organization (or a program) and not an individual client. Evaluators are not likely to have
the control necessary to manipulate another organization (or program); the costs of having
such control or comparison groups are likely to be excessive; and the closeness of lit of finding
a suitable control or comparison group for an organization or program that is virtually
unique-by dint of its: distinctive mission; geographic location and demographic profile; age,
history, and peculiar internal structure; and contextual setting-is extremely low.
These circumstances are gradually forcing evaluators into a new way of thinking (Yin,
1993b). To start, recall the original importance of control or comparison groups: to rule
out rival explanations, but by inference. Thus, the virtue of having control or comparison
groups has been the luxury of ruling out rivals without necessarily identifying them.
However, the possibility now exists that, where control or comparison groups are
infeasible, rigorous designs still can be developed if evaluators would specify the key rivals
ahead of time. The more that these rivals can be specified, the more that they can be
investigated directly-by tracking the existence of alternative sequences of events with the
intervention group, but not requiring the use of control or comparison groups.

FUTURE SCENARIO II:

LOOKING BACK TO A DISTINCTIVE CASE STUDY METHOD

The second scenario contrasts directly with the first: Future evaluators will focus
specifically on the evaluations of today that are using the case study method. What might
 EVALUATIONPRACTICE,15(3),1994

these evaluations be? Unfortunately, none of them has been completed as of this writing.
Some have even not yet begun.
The most important case study evaluations are likely to be those focusing on complex
interventions in multiple settings and with no singular clientele as a target population.
Jargony as the sentence sounds, a whole host of important interventions fitting this
description have begun during the past 5 years. Most involve some sort of
interorganizational partnership or systemic reform or systems change effort. Two examples
come readily to mind.
In K-12 education in science and mathematics, the National Science Foundation has
been supporting “systemic initiatives” for some time. One such initiative involves the
awarding of up to $2 million per year (for up to five years) to individual states. The states
are supposed to design and implement broad-based systemic changes in the way that science
and mathematics are taught and presented. The changes involve: state and local
educational policies (e.g., de-tracking); curricula based on newly developed national
standards; heavily revamped preservice and inset-vice training for teachers; the development
of new assessment techniques (e.g., the accumulation of a student’s portfolio of work in
addition to the administration of pencil-and-paper tests); a revived vision of science and
mathematics for all students, not just a privileged subset; and numerous other major
changes.
In drug prevention, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) have been supporting large local
consortia-“community partnerships” since 1991. Annually, nearly 250 partnerships may
receive $500,000 each (for up to five years). Each partnership must include formal
agreements among seven or more organizations, including the local general purpose
government. In actuality, each partnership averages about 50 membership organizations.
These partnerships emphasize systems change, and not necessarily interventions directed
at individual clients-for example, those at risk of becoming substance abusers. Typical
systems changes might be: new ordinances to facilitate the seizure and demolition of houses
involved in drug trafficking; bans on the sale of beer at gas stations; culturally sensitive
programming of services; or campaigns to alter the image of gateway drugs (alcohol and
tobacco) in the mass media. COSMOS Corporation will be completing the national
evaluation of these community partnerships (1994-97).
Evaluating either of these programs (the state systemic initiatives program in the first
instance and the community partnerships program in the second) is likely to require a case
study of each program. Within each case will be (quantitative and qualitative) data from
the individually funded projects, but the project data cannot automatically be aggregated
in any simple terms. Some projects may be more important than others, and some projects
may have been funded with greater risks than others. Further, the projects all involve multiple
initiatives, also not readily aggregated. Finally, the important outcomes are long-term and
likely to be overdetermined-that is, other conditions, and not just the funded interventions
also will feed into them. A very challenging, multiply-nested research design is the result.
These two illustrative programs are similar to activities taking place in other fields-
for example, mental health, health promotion, education for students with disabilities,
job creation and local economic development, and community development. Foundations
and not just the federal government have major investments in these interventions. If the
case study method is to be a lasting evaluative tool, Future Scenario II conjectures the
emergence of some classic case study evaluations from this pool of interventions.
Future of CaseStudy Research 287

FUTURE SCENARIO III:

LOOKING TO THE CASE STUDY METHOD AS AN INTEGRATING FORCE
IN THE QUALITATIVE-QUANTITATIVE DEBATE

Evaluation’s dualistic cross-the apparent conflict between qualitative and quantitative

dimensions-is not likely to disappear in the 21st century (Datta, 1994; Yin 1994b).
However, any debate should be more controlled, and integrated designs relying on both
dimensions should be more commonplace (Reichardt & Rallis, 1994).
A third scenario is that the most important future reference to the case study method
will be as a major integrating force between these two dimensions. Citations to specific
case study research, as in Future Scenario II, will not be important. Rather, what will
be cited in the 21st century will be the expanded practice of doing case study research
that increasingly incorporates qualitative and quantitative data and methods.
Figure 1 illustrates this integrating theme. At first more separate than overlapping,
qualitative and quantitative methods will increasingly overlap. In this future scenario, most
evaluations will have both approaches rather than one or the other. Bringing qualitative
and quantitative evidence and methods together will be the special strength of the case
study method. Although other qualitative methods (such as ethnography) have historically
used quantitative techniques, and vice-versa (such as the use of focus groups as a
complementary part of doing surveys), the case study will be more prominent because
of its broader applicability and persistent, integrating theme.
An example of this integration is where a single evaluation, of a single program, may
nevertheless consist of multiple substudies (Yin, 1993a). Each substudy may have its own
research design and may use different methods, but the aggregating of these substudies
into a singular evaluation framework will best occur when the singular framework is
considered a case study framework. Many of the methodological techniques from Future
Scenario I will be relevant and used. Overall, however, Future Scenario III conjectures
references to integrating practice as the primary contribution of the present to the future.
Case study designs that suit this integrating role will become more sophisticated and more
standardized.

Case Study Works That Will Continue to be Cited

How to choose among these three scenarios is difficult. If no drastic changes in current
trends occur, the odds favor Future Scenario II. However, if no stellar case study research
is completed soon, either Future Scenarios I or III will then prevail. On the assumption
that II is the choice, several works would seem to be high on a short list of “must” reading.
First, Donald Campbell’s “‘Degrees of Freedom’ and the Case Study” (1975) will be
read and re-read. As with nearly all his writing, the concepts and ideas are so rich that
re-reading will be a continued source of inspiration for new research practices. Remember
that this provocative article starts with the observation that,
“ . . .in a single qualitative case study, the conscientious social scientist often finds no
explanation that seems satisfactory.”

Campbell notes the paradoxical nature of this observation, from the traditional
quantitative viewpoint: Where multiple variables exist for a single datapoint, there should,
288 EVALUATIONPRACTICE,15(3),1994

QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE
NOW

Archival Records

IN THE
FUTURE
l Surveys
I l EthnwraVhy
l True l Participant-

Exhibit I. Gradual Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Research?

in Campbell’s words, be a “surfeit of subjectively compelling explanations.” Instead, there

is often a dearth. The remainder of his article tries to explain the paradox.
Second, a useful handbook for doing case study evaluations will continue to be the
U.S. General Accounting Office’s (GAO) Case Study Evohations (1990). The
attractiveness of this slender volume is that it emanates from an institution that has more
commonly been considered the province of other evaluation methods, not the case study.
Future of Case Study Reseamh 289

Moreover, the institution and its publications are likely to persist for a long time, and
GAO’s influence over public policy evaluations is likely to increase with time. The existence
of a “transfer” series paper on case study evaluations will therefore continue to draw
readers, out of curiosity if nothing else.
Third, multiple case study research, not the classic single case study, will be the
dominant substantive works. In retrospect, Graham Allison’s Essence of Decision (1971)
might be the last of the great single case studies. The historical context of this book,
however, will become so outdated that it will finally cease being cited in such popular
fashion as today (imagine how students in the 21st century are likely to think of the Soviet
Union-much as we today might regard Kuomintang China and a person named Chiang
Kai-Shek). The multiple cases might be as small as two-for example, the microelectronics
and aeronautics industries in Hooks (1990)-or contain larger numbers of cases.
Fourth, renewed attention will be given to the way that narratives are composed in
science, how narratives embed scientific argument, and therefore how narratives implicitly
embed research designs (especially cross-experiment or cross-case designs). Scholars of
the 21st century will desperately search for works on this topic, but be largely frustrated.
They will therefore rediscover an extremely important work in ethnographic (not case
study) writing, John Van Maanen’s Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography (1988).
His book identifies several different types of tales: realist tales, confessional tales,
impressionist tales, critical tales, formal tales, literary tales, and jointly told tales. Although
Van Maanen’s typology is meant for ethnography, his work is included in a case study
list because his notion of a typology of narrative forms will be invaluable for the
development of a parallel typology for case study research.
The nomination of these four works concludes this discovery of the future. Not included
in the three scenarios or the nominated works are ideas about formalizing a case study
profession-for example, by suggesting the emergence of a case study journal, a degree
in doing case study research, or cross-national sharing of study opportunities and data.
These would be an alternative way of thinking about the evolution of a profession. However,
the goal has been to focus on the substantive issues, and not necessarily a profession.
Remember, too, that the four works are not nominations for being put into a time
capsule, to be opened in the 21st century. Rather, the exercise has been to prognosticate
what evaluators in the 21st century will of their own accord find important in our current
works. The reverse logic is like projecting not what Alice saw in Wonderland when she
looked into the looking glass, but what the characters of Wonderland each thought when
they first encountered Alice. One can only wish the best of luck to the evaluation
wonderland of the 21st century.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author would like to thank Jennifer Platt and John Van Maanen for reviewing an
earlier version of this article.

REFERENCES

Allison, G. T. (1971).Ewence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Little, Brown, Boston,
MA.
290 EVALUATION PRACTICE, 15(3), 1994

Campbell, D. T. (1975). Degrees of freedom and the case study. Comparative Political Studies, 8,
178-193.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research.
Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues forfield
settings. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.
Datta, L.-E. (1994). Paradigm wars: A basis for peaceful coexistence and beyond. New Directions
for Program Evaluation, 61, 53-70.
Hooks, G. (1990). The rise of the Pentagon and U.S. State Building: The defense program as
industrial policy. American Journal of Sociology, 96,358404.
Platt, J. (1992). ‘Case study’ in American methodological thought. Current Sociology, 40, 1748.
Reichardt, C. S., & Rallis S. F. (Eds.). (1994). The qualitativequantitative debate: New perspectives.
New Directions for Program Evaluation, 61.
Rossi, P. H., & Freeman, H. E. (1993). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Shaw, C. R. (1930). The jack roller. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1990). Program evaluation and methodology division: Case study
evaluations. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Yin, R. K. (1993a). Applications of case study research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Yin, R. K. (1993b). New methoak for evaluating programs in NSF’S Division of Research,
Evaluation, and Dissemination. Unpublished paper, COSMOS Corporation, Washington,
D.C.
Yin, R. K. (1994a). Case study research: Design and methodr (2nd ed., 1st ed., 1984; rev. ed., 1989).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Yin, R. K. (1994b). Evaluation: A singular craft. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 61, 71-
84.