Case Study Research

Chapter 7
Case Study Research
The experiential account that we get from a case study or

qualitative research of a similar vein is just so necessary. How
things happen over time and the degree to which they are
subject to personality and how they are only gradually
perceived as tolerable or intolerable by the communities and
the groups that are involved is so important.
Robert Stake, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Introduction
As a footnote to the previous chapter, there is such a beast known as the ethno-
graphic case study. Ethnographic case study has found its way into this chapter
rather than into the previous one because of grammatical considerations. Simply
put, the “case study” part of the phrase is the noun (with “case” as an adjective
defining what kind of study it is), while the “ethnographic” part of the phrase is an
adjective defining the type of case study that is being conducted. As such, the case
study becomes the methodology, while the ethnography part refers to a method,
mode or approach relating to the development of the study.
Many such permutations abound, as has already been noted in chapters previous
to this one. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why qualitative research, in general,
has been viewed from many perspectives as being complex, messy and altogether
confusing. And these charges may very well, in certain circumstances, ring true.
However, if one is to bear in mind that the adjective used to describe the noun reso-
nates with a method or an approach that will be utilized in order to develop the
methodology, things may appear to be marginally less confusing.
As we move into a consideration of case study research, this and other permuta-
tions of case study research will be revisited. Please note that, as we proceed through
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at

[https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85124-8_7]. The videos can be accessed individually by
clicking the DOI link in the accompanying figure caption or by scanning this link with the SN
More Media App.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 233

Switzerland AG 2022
R. E. White, K. Cooper, Qualitative Research in the Post-Modern Era,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85124-8_7
234 7 Case Study Research
various discussions of numerous methodologies, we encourage the reader to engage

in a dis-entanglement, of sorts, among not only the various methodologies but also
among the attendant variations relating to the methodologies themselves. Should
you find that you are not yet confused, please continue reading.
The term “case study” refers to both a specific research design or methodology,
and a method of analysis for examining a problem. Mills et al. (2010) note that case
study, both as a methodology and as a method—unlike many qualitative methodolo-
gies—is frequently used to generalize across populations. While this is definitely a
function of purpose and possibility, qualitative research, in general, has resisted the
tendency to generalize as a function of its qualitative nature and the fact that it seeks
to understand a specific event or experience.
While quantitative research tends to generalize across and within categories—
the how, what or why of things studied—qualitative research, as the term suggests,
is much more interested in description of qualities expressed by a particular phe-
nomenon, event or effect. Thus, generalizability continues to be a contentious point
within and between quantitative and qualitative paradigms of research. In order to
bring some sense of clarity to this, one may consider the context within which the
research is being conducted. This may allow some inkling as to the extent that any
research, including case study research, can be generalized among and within spe-
cific methodologies and/or across paradigms. This sense of paradox between the
particular and the generalizable is central to case study research, since the case itself
is a concrete, bounded object existing within a complex, fluid context. This flexible
boundary between context and case is the nexus where the researcher works, with
research questions evolving as the study progresses. As Robert Stake notes, “Case
and context are infinitely complex and the phenomena are fluid and elusive. In a
flood of happenings, the researcher grasps for something to hold onto” (Stake,
1995, p. 33).
Once again, according to Mills et al. (2010), case study research may examine an
individual person, place, event, organization, action, phenomenon, or other type of
subject or topic, existing within a specific time and place (Rolls, 2005). Case study
is suitable for identifying key themes and introducing recommendations that may
help to predict trends, to illuminate hidden issues applicable to practice, and/or to
provide a means for understanding a research problem—or “learning tangle” —
with greater clarity. While case studies may examine a single subject of analysis,
they may also be designed as comparative investigations that reveal relationships
between two or more subjects or topics (Swanborn, 2010). This approach encour-
ages researchers to compare dimensions horizontally, vertically, and temporally
(Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017). The methods used to study a case can rest within a quan-
titative, qualitative, or mixed-method investigative paradigm (Creswell, 2013). The
“case,” itself, may be any subject or topic that lends itself to a close, in-depth,
detailed investigation of virtually any subject or topic, including attending related
contextual decisions.
Case study research has held an important position in many disciplines and pro-
fessions, ranging from psychology, anthropology, sociology, and political science to
education, clinical science, social work, and administrative science (Yin, 2014).
The Biographical Context 235
Thus, case study, defined as a research design, implies an empirical inquiry, study
or research endeavour that investigates a phenomenon within a “real life “con-
text.” Case study research may explore bounded single or multiple cases, and relies
on multiple sources of evidence, such as observations, interviews, audiovisual mate-
rial, documents and reports, and may also include quantitative evidence, and may
incorporate benefits from prior theoretical propositions (Rolls, 2005). Several pro-
grams (a multi-site study) or a single program (a “within-site” study) may be
selected for study. At any rate, the case study may also represent a research approach,
situated between concrete, data-taking techniques and methodological paradigms
(Demetriou, 2017).
The Biographical Context
Case study methodology largely gained credence with social scientists through its
usefulness in psychological circles as a result of the work of Sigmund Freud, as well
as through case analyses in medicine, case law, and case reports in political science.
As such, case study research can boast of a long and distinguished history due to its
exposure through numerous disciplines. Following is a brief biographical synopsis
of some of the key figures that have assisted in the development of case study
research.
Pierre Guillaume Frédéric Le Play (1806–1882), a French sociologist, used the
concept of case studies to perform research on families. Le Play first introduced the
case study method into the social sciences in 1829 as a handmaiden to statistics in
his studies of family budgets (Healey, 1947). He was interested in the natural sci-
ences and, at l’Ecole des Mines, in Paris, became chairman of the standing commit-
tee on mining statistics and, later on, a professor of metallurgy. This is significant
because, for almost 25 years, as he traveled around Europe, he collected vast
amounts of data regarding the social and economic conditions of the working
classes. In 1855, he published Les Ouvriers Européens: La Méthode d’Observation,
a series of case studies on selected topics, relating to typical families from a wide
range of industries. In 1856, Le Play founded the Société Internationale des Études
Pratiques D’économie Sociale, which strove to study and improve the social condi-
tions of some of the most marginalized people in that society. The society’s jour-
nal, La Réforme Sociale (1881) continues to be published bi-weekly.
Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), an Austrian neurologist, was the founder of psy-
choanalysis. Freud established a clinical practice in Vienna in 1886, left it to escape
the Nazis, and died in exile in the United Kingdom. Freud helped to develop and
advance the concept of case studies. Medical fields continue to use his approach.
Case studies are widely used in psychology and among the best known were ones
carried out by Freud.
William I. Thomas (1863–1947) and Florian Znaniecki (1882–1956) conducted
a study of Polish peasants throughout the 1950s, resulting in the five-volume publi-
cation of The Polish Peasant in Europe and America (1918–1920) (1996). This
volume of work, considered to be a classic in the realm of sociology, is generally

viewed as antecedent to qualitative case study research. It was formatted in a style
that would eventually become known as the case study format and was based on
personal stories, letters and documents—such as brochures, newspaper articles, par-
ish and court documents—of Polish immigrants in the United States. Although
Thomas was the principal investigator for this study and initially intended this work
to be a collection of translated and annotated primary documents, Znaniecki con-
vinced him to extend this into a larger work with a more detailed analysis of the
topic, methodology and theory. With Znaniecki’s knowledge of philosophy, meth-
odology and the subject matter of Polish society serving as complementary to
Thomas’s expertise in sociology, social psychology, and the Polish American com-
munity in Chicago, this five-volume work, which could not have been created by
either of these men individually, is considered a classic of empirical sociology.
Martin Bulmer (1986) described this as a “neglected classic...landmark because it
attempted to integrate theory and data in a way no American study had done before”
(p. 45). Zaretsky (1996), editor of this five volume book, views this valuable publi-
cation as a “founding work” (p. ix) in American sociology, due to the fact that this
work was responsible for shifting sociological inquiry from theoretical analysis to
research that relied on empirical data, a model for future exploration. Bulmer (1986)
considers
The subsequent use in sociological research of personal documents, such as life histories,
letters, diaries, and other first-person material, may in large measure be traced back to the
influence of The Polish Peasant. The life story of Władek was the first systematically col-
lected sociological life history. (p. 54)
In many senses, this volume, so important to modern audiences, remains a clas-

sic in terms of foreshadowing the eventual case study process.
Bronislaw Malinowski (1884–1942) is chiefly known for his remarkable experi-
ences in the Trobriand Islands, out of which emerged his book, Argonauts of the
Western Pacific. Although Malinowski is noted mostly for his work in ethnographic
circles, he has also influenced case study research. For example, Hamel, Dufour,
and Fortin (1993) trace the origins of modern social science case studies through
anthropology and sociology, and cite Malinowski’s study of the Trobriand Islands
native population.
Robert Stake (1927–) is credited with systematically establishing processes for
case study research. More recently, Robert Stake (2005) has explored multiple case
study analysis and presents a methodological rationale for this type of research.
Additionally, he suggests that the case study researcher makes an important choice
in determining his/her role in the research, deliberately and/or intuitively, either as
participant or observer, and this is an ethical choice dictated by the circumstances of
the research. Stake also asserts that interpretation is central to the function of the
case study researcher. The depth of experience possessed by the expert case
researcher is key to determining the appropriate role, derived from “intimate knowl-
edge of several thousand concrete cases” (Flyvbjerg, 2004, p. 421). This, Flyvbjerg
identifies, is the “virtuoso researcher” (p. 421).
The Historical Context 237
Robert K. Yin (1941–), an American social scientist and president of COSMOS

Corporation, is well known for his work on case study research. Yin (2014) advo-
cates quantitative, as well as qualitative approaches to case study research. His
exposure to case study research began during his years as an urban planner and
analyst at the New York City RAND Institute, where he conducted studies on
declining conditions in city neighbourhoods, urban services and civic participation.
Thirty years of field-based and statistical studies followed, with the intent of provid-
ing methodological advances and guidelines for the rigorous application of case
study research in education, nursing and urban planning. He suggests that any meth-
odological advances in the area of rigour are to be valued, since the craft of case
study research has been derided as “primitive” (Yin, 1991, p. 299). At COSMOS,
Dr. Yin actively leads a variety of research projects, often those utilizing a case
study methodology. He has authored numerous books and peer-reviewed articles,
including Applications of Case Study Research (2012) and Case Study
Research (2014).
The Historical Context
According to Professor Emeritus, Robert Stake, case study analysis did not arrive
upon the scene fully formed. Neither was it immediately accepted by its detractors.
Among the issues is the age-old tension between qualitative and quantitative
research, regarding what counts as research. Case study research, like so many qual-
itative research methodologies, has often been viewed as not rigorous enough to be
considered “scientific.” Professor Stake is relatively at ease with this, as he uses case
studies in a number of different ways.
Upon first arriving at the University of Illinois, Robert Stake was interested in
conducting instructional research. However, in the “post-sputnik” era of the Cold
War between the United States and Russia, there was a push to revamp existing cur-
ricula. What was required was a way to evaluate new curricular innovations. Much
to his surprise, the standard processes of evaluation were insufficient, as they
“answered all too few of the questions” that had been posed by curriculum develop-
ers and their sponsors. Professor Stake believed that the answer lay in qualitative,
rather than in quantitative inquiry. Accordingly, he began to study the work of
Clifford Geertz and other ethnographers. This, he found to be quite taxing and time-
consuming. Gradually, however, the light dawned and Robert Stake recognized the
direction in which he needed to travel. In terms of classroom observation, he felt
that the discipline of ethnography was not yet enough a part of him to be able to
utilize ethnography effectively.
Professor Emeritus Robert Stake
In the following video-clip Professor Stake describes how he came to case study
research.
Video Clip 7.1: Professor Emeritus Robert Stake

(▶ https://doi.org/10.1007/000-6d3)
This led to his using case studies as an alternate means of discovery. Professor
Stake refers to the case study as a “stepping stone” for part of the requisite evalua-
tions. However, he claims, this took a very long time to come to fruition. Inspiration
was found in the person of Professor Lee Cronbach, the developer of the quantita-
tive construct known as Cronbach’s alpha, who commented that what was needed
was a social anthropologist. Professor Stake admits that it took him a long time to
figure out exactly what Professor Cronbach meant. Robert Stake notes that, although
he did not become a social anthropologist, he gravitated towards the kind of sensi-
tivity and perspective that he detected and admired among social psychologists,
cultural anthropologists and researchers in curriculum studies.
In visualizing case study research, Professor Stake sees the case study as an “epi-
sode,” a stepping-stone or a building block. Using a phenomenological term, he
refers to the episode as a “lived experience” to describe the “bit of happening” that
can be studied and amplified. Also, the “case” can be aggregated and interpreted. As
has been noted in previous chapters, interpretation is a key procedure for much
qualitative research inquiry. Professor Stake compares this interpretive turn to a
qualitative “trade off,” differing from quantitative researchers who attempt to under-
stand their research in terms of the variables involved. Case studies, however, are
more concerned with less complex comparisons but with higher qualities of descrip-
tion. However, he claims, case studies are just as valuable in quantitative research
even though they may be viewed as a qualitative concept.
As such, case studies, in bridging quantitative and qualitative research endeav-
ours, represent an example of cooperation or coordination between the two para-
digms. One may utilize case studies to refine metric analysis and measurement, as
well as to look for correlations between and among cases. Robert Stake validates
this unabashed comment by stating that we are already in the quantitative world,
hearkening back to a paraphrase of Martin Heidegger’s point that hermeneutic inter-
pretation is circular, as we are already “in the world”—a clear example of “realist”
thinking. As such, Professor Stake notes that quantitative researchers rely on vari-
ables but, in qualitative research, the stepping-stones are instances, happenings or
episodes.
Because of the work of these dedicated individuals and others too numerous to
mention here, the case study writer of today has an array of texts and approaches
from which to choose (Creswell, 2017). However, it was not always thus. The his-
tory of case study methodology has been both eclectic and practical. First making
an appearance during the traditional period (early 1900s) in the area of anthropol-
ogy, as field studies of other cultures, case study methodology was eventually
adopted by the Chicago School of Sociology as a way to study contemporary soci-
ety in a university setting. Following World War II, the method fell out of favour
when logical positivism took hold as the dominant research philosophy and the
social science camp became divided between positivists and anti-positivists. By the
1950s, although logical positivism had faded, “within the social sciences the meth-
odology of the natural sciences was still emulated…. This was a consequence of a
fear of not being scientifically acceptable” (Johansson, 2003, p. 6).
By the late 1960s, a second-generation case study methodology emerged (the
inductive methodology of Grounded Theory), merging qualitative field study meth-
ods with quantitative data analysis methods. The next step was taken by Yin in the
1980s and 1990s, who “transferred experimental logic into the field of naturalistic
inquiry and combined it with qualitative methods” (Johansson, 2003, p. 7). Yin
(1981) attempted to reaffirm the case study as a systematic and acceptable research
tool not only for student researchers but also for funders of social science research
who review proposals for case study research. He positioned the case study as the
“implicit companion” to qualitative analysis and asserted there was confusion
between types of data (qualitative), data collection methods (ethnography) and
research strategies due to the simple fact that some critics were interpreting qualita-
tive data and case studies as being interchangeable. Yin (2014) argues that case
study methodology and methods can follow a rigorous path, establish a database for
analysis and stand up to scrutiny by the development of an airtight chain of evidence
that can be traced from hypothesis and research questions through to concluding
assertions and back again.
As champions of case study research, Stake and Yin exhibit the stance, noted by
Flyvbjerg, of the virtuoso researcher. They embrace alternative perspectives,
acknowledge the eminence of worthy opponents and, using evidence gained from
their “intimate knowledge of several thousand concrete cases” (Flyvbjerg, 2004,
p. 421), demonstrate, with relish, the flawed logic of detractors of the methodology.
In his defense of case study research as an acceptable craft, Yin raises the possibility
of a “case study crisis” (Yin, 1981, p. 58). He then points out, in a logical argument
supported by evidence, how Matthew Miles (1979) had confused qualitative data
with case study research by intermingling types of evidence, data collection meth-
ods and research strategies in his argument. In the video-clip, Robert Stake clarifies
his position with respect to case study analysis.

(▶ https://doi.org/10.1007/000-6d2)
In this clip, Professor Stake says that, when he thinks of case study, he thinks of
studying the case itself, in terms of the intrinsic interest in the case, rather than in
the supporting paraphernalia encompassing the case study. He claims that this is
what it is that we actually care about in much the same way that we would care
about a prospective client. At this point, he draws a parallel between researching the
case study and the practice of nursing, vis-à-vis the patient who, at this point, is
representative of the client in the case study. The same parallel can be drawn regard-
ing social work and the clients that are referred to the caseworker. This is an impor-
tant perspective because, as Professor Stake avers, many sociologists are inclined to
wonder what the prospective situation is “a case of?”
In response to the question of generalizability, a major question frequently occurs

regarding how this case will assist one in understanding other cases and in under-
standing how this “traditional social science” can be utilized in promoting under-
standing of larger systems. However, as has been noted previously, generalizability
tends to be the province of quantitative research, whereas qualitative research tends
to focus more on the particulars of specific cases, phenomena and the like. While
case study findings may be generalizable, it is not essential for them to be so.
From the perspective of a person who grew up in a small town, Professor Stake
claims that the ability to generalize from a specific case is not nearly so important,
nor as challenging, as understanding the individual within the case or the individual
case itself, whether it be a child, a teacher or an entire national medical or educa-
tional system. The purpose of case study analysis, then, is not to generalize specifics
from one case to other cases, but to particularize an individual case in terms of its
complexity or the situational reality of that specific case.
The Teachings of Robert Stake
In his teaching, Professor Stake notes that the majority of his students want to either
choose or be assigned to a case that is suitable to their respective committees, in
terms of the particular discipline within which the students find themselves. At the
same time, these students want to study important educational questions, whether
social work or history. These students want something that their field considers to
be as respectful within research-oriented campuses as can be. It is this type of case
study that Robert Stake refers to as an instrumental case study, which he frequently
uses as a concept in his classes and in the advisement work that he conducts with his
students.
Professor Stake encourages students to think about the intrinsic case, in part,
because of its value in relation to their general research thinking. He claims that, if
the students merely subordinate a case to a general research question, they are much
less likely to recognize special fields, such as that of the biographer, or the special
concern of the social worker. Consequently, case study research, from the instru-
mental perspective, attempts to understand the case from the point of view of the
caseworkers, themselves.
In defining a case, Robert Stake identifies the case as being “something with
boundaries” replete with an integrity and internal operation of some sort. A case,
then, may arrive complete with goals and aspirations of some description. There is
often an amorphous sense of the researcher questioning whether (s)he is “on the
right track,” which tends to reinforce a sense of self-reflection. However, a curricu-
lum, for example, or an innovation within a school district may also represent a
case. Professor Stake also notes, however, that it may be difficult to identify quali-
ties that allow the circumstance to be viewed as a case. Thus, the boundaries of the
case study appear to be somewhat porous. Even so, as, Professor Stake suggests,
while some individuals may oppose or advocate for the case study approach,
ultimately the deciding factor will be the feelings, experiences and mental condi-
tions that can be investigated in order to understand the case. This is also true even
with an abstract case.
In order to proffer an example of such an issue, Robert Stake uses an illustration
from his classroom. Professor Stake recounts how he had his students critique a case
study where there existed a conflict between the Superintendent of Public Instruction
in Wisconsin, who was attempting to wrest responsibility from the College of
Education, University of Wisconsin at Madison. The superintendent claimed that
the law requires that the state decide upon standards for teacher education. His con-
tention was that, while communication had been in abundance, the processes in
place for teacher education were not sufficiently rigorous. As a result, the superin-
tendent wanted to take some of that responsibility back.
Now, Professor Stake surmises that the matter came to a head, at least in part, due
to the personality of the state commissioner. However, despite this circumstance, it
turned out to be a high-quality case study that he had his doctoral students explore.
As it transpired, however, the students experienced difficulty with “finding” the
case, even though the author identified the conflict as the case. It turned out that the
students were uncomfortable with the abstract quality of the case. As such, it would
have been easier if the case revolved around an adolescent girl, for example, or a
police officer seconded by the school district to provide some sort of drug awareness
training. A group of people, or a faculty, perhaps, would offer a more obvious case.
Why was this particular case chosen above more obvious examples? Professor
Stake suggests that the students would learn more from this exemplar case by strug-
gling with the nature of the case itself, rather than a case that revolves around a
person of a group of individuals. In this way, the students can come to understand
the idiosyncrasies of cases that are not quite so clear cut as those that may involve
individuals, rather than a specific conflict. As the video-clip ends, Professor Stake
notes that, when he wrote the book, The Art of Case Study Research (1995), he was
just beginning to get some of those ideas in mind. He notes that, although he is still
happy with the book, his ideas relating to case study analysis are in flux, as they are
always changing, evolving and improving.
As can be seen from the above video-clip, qualitative case studies can be identi-
fied and distinguished by several factors. One such factor may concern the boundar-
ies, or the size, of the case. For example, the case may involve one individual,
several individuals, a group, an entire program, or an activity. Additionally, the case
may also be identified by the intent of the case analysis, whether it be an instrumen-
tal, multiple or intrinsic case (Creswell & Poth, 2017).
Interestingly enough, according to Creswell and Poth (2017), narrative inquiry,
ethnography and case study research may bear similar characteristics when the sub-
ject of analysis is one individual. However, key to understanding qualitative research
in general terms is the recognition that, while a researcher may investigate the indi-
vidual using any of the methodologies at his or her disposal, the type of methodol-
ogy chosen will influence the type of data collected. Additionally, the analysis of the
collected data would also differ significantly. Creswell and Poth (2017) offer the
example of the narrative researcher who focuses on stories told by the individual
who may arrange the story in chronological or non-chronological order. By com-

parison, the ethnographer attempts to set the individual’s story within the context of
the individual’s culture. Finally, in case study research, the investigator chooses the
case, compiling a detailed description of the case setting, to illustrate an issue.
Robert Yin (2012) notes that the case study methodology is chosen when the
researcher wishes to cover contextual conditions that may be pertinent to the phe-
nomenon that has been selected for study. Thus, an in-depth study of a bounded
system, a single case, or multiple cases may be best treated as a case study.
Within a qualitative paradigm, case study research arises from the desire to
understand complex social phenomena and may be utilized in numerous arenas of
social science and applied disciplines, such as psychology, sociology, anthropology,
environmental studies, political science, business, education, nursing, social work
and economics. Case study methodology is frequently used as a teaching instrument
in law, education, business and psychology. Its methodological personality is, in a
word, sophisticated. This may be due to its non-interventive, empathic, patient and
reflective nature that allows for multiple viewpoints or perspectives to emerge. As
such, case study research strives to understand how the actors and/or the programs
studied view their multiple realities and allows for contradictory perspectives.
As a bounded “object” or system that contains working “parts” organized around
“issues,” the case study presents an integrated system that is at once purposive and
which also contains a distinctive and concrete identity. Even when its component
parts do not appear to work well together, or when its purpose appears irrational, it
remains a unique system worth studying and understanding both for its particularity
and its commonality with other cases (Stake, 1995). Essentially, case study research
eschews sampling, as sampling is frequently redundant for the simple matter that
the actors, or participants, involved in the case have already been chosen. As a
result, a case is not studied primarily in order to understand other cases. This returns
us to the notion of generalizability. One tends to examine a case in order to under-
stand the particular case itself for its revelations about a particular social phenom-
enon within its context. It is not required to be “typical.” In fact, “atypical” cases
may be beneficial in revealing or resurrecting overlooked data and attendant issues.
Robert Stake offers assistance in helping one to understand the role of the case
study researcher by ascribing various personas to that role. He uses the personas of
the teacher, the advocate, the evaluator, the interpreter and the biographer (Stake,
1995). For example, as a biographer, the case study researcher literally documents
the life of an individual, a phase in this life, or some such instance. The challenge
for the researcher is not to fall into the trap of writing to fit a stereotype. Of all the
roles available, Professor Stake contends that the case study researcher, as an inter-
preter, is central to the research and serves to construct or develop new qualitative
knowledge, as a craftsperson or an artist would, rather than attempting to discover
the “truth,” much as a scientist would. In “clarifying descriptions and sophisticating
interpretations” (Stake, 1995, p. 102), case study research depends upon the thick
description of ethnography and the “emic” interpretations of issues that are consti-
tuted from within a social group, or from the perspective of the subject, arising from
the scrutiny of a unique case.
The Political Context
While numerous types of case studies abound, one of the greatest debates addresses
concerns relating to the legitimacy of the case study as a methodology. Many schol-
ars, including Robert Stake himself, see the case study as a method and as a meth-
odology, depending upon the circumstances involved. In his interview, Professor
Stake intimates that he really sees the case study as compiling a number of methods,
but that a methodology is more complex than a set of methods. According to other
scholars, however, this may be merely a matter of semantics. Robert Stake, in
describing case study methodology, notes:
I don’t think of case study as a method and certainly not as elegant or elevated as a method-
ology. I think a methodology is barely short of a paradigm. It is the study of lots of methods
all into one.
While this may be true, other scholars regard this set of methods as a case study
methodology in its own right. In fact, case study research is contextualized by the
recognition of a number of types of case study inquiry methods. Perhaps, as Robert
Stake opines, case study is both method and methodology.
Types of Case Studies
Regarding types of case study, Ridder (2017) distinguishes among four common
case study approaches. Firstly, the “no theory first” type of case study design is
closely connected to grounded theory’s methodological work. The second type of
research design explores “gaps and holes,” and follows Yin’s guidelines regarding
positivist assumptions. A third design deals with the “social construction of reality”
represented by Stake. Finally, case study research can also identify “anomalies.”
These types of qualitative case studies can be distinguished by the size, or scope, of
the bounded case, or by the intent of the case study analysis, which will identify the
case study as either a single instrumental case study, a collective/multiple case
study, or an intrinsic case study.
The Instrumental Case
When choosing a single instrumental case study, the researcher focuses on an issue
or concern and, then, selects one bounded case to illustrate this (Stake, 1995). As
such, the issue becomes the focal point for the research. In an instrumental case
study, the researcher selects a small group of subjects in order to examine a certain
pattern of behaviour; for instance, to see how tertiary level students study for exami-
nations. In a collective case study, the researcher coordinates data from several dif-
ferent sources, such as schools or individuals. Unlike intrinsic case studies, which
seek to resolve specific issues related to an individual case, instrumental and
The Political Context 245
collective case studies may allow for the generalization of findings to a larger
population.
The Collective or Multiple Case
The case study is the process, whether a method or a methodology, by which the
issue is illuminated. This remains true in selecting a collective or multiple case
study. Although a single issue or concern is once again selected with the collective
case study, the researcher chooses multiple case studies to illustrate the issue. The
selection may consist of any number of programs from any number of research sites
or it may consist of multiple programs from within a single site. The purpose for
selecting multiple cases is, typically, to reveal differing perspectives on the same
issue (Creswell & Poth, 2017).
Generally speaking, qualitative researchers are reluctant to generalize from one
case to another, simply because the contexts of each case differs. In order to general-
ize, however, the researcher selects representative cases to include in the qualitative
study. In this way, Robert Yin (2012) considers the collective or multiple case study
design as a vehicle for the logic of replication. In this instance, the researcher repli-
cates the procedures for each case. It is this procedure that allows for some level of
generalization regarding case study analysis.
The multi-case study is a collection of cases bound together by a single category
or target phenomenon—the “quintain”—a term borrowed by Robert Stake (2005)
from the world of knighthood and jousting, where a common object such as a shield
on a pole, referred to as the quintain, was used for target practice. The quintain of
case study methodology may contain several embedded cases or mini-cases, each
constrained by its unique relationship to the quintain and studied for its individual
in-depth relevance, complexity and representation of diversity across the cases.
To understand the quintain more deeply, one may study a set of single or multiple
cases, sites or manifestations, in order to determine similarities or differences about
the cases with the objective of better understanding the target phenomenon. Stake
identifies a procedural dilemma of the multi-case study as being the identification of
what is most worth knowing within both the collective quintain and the specific
cases. The researcher is simultaneously pulled toward attending to the pieces and to
the whole (Stake, 2005).
The Intrinsic Case
The final type of case study design is an intrinsic case study, in which the focus is
on the case itself. Issues to be considered for an intrinsic case study may be related
to evaluating a program or may range as far afield as studying a student having dif-
ficulty with a particular aspect of his or her schooling (Stake, 2005). In an intrinsic
case study, a researcher examines the case for its own sake. Each case presents an
unusual or unique situation. Although this may superficially resemble the focus of
other selected qualitative methodologies, such as narrative inquiry, for example, the
case study is chiefly concerned with developing a detailed description of the case
and setting it within its context or surroundings.
The Political Role of Case Study Research
Both Robert Stake and Robert Yin have been influenced by changes in social and
political contexts and by a postmodern shift towards more qualitative research
methodologies. Robert Stake refers to the commencement of his work in the field of
curriculum evaluation as the “Post-Sputnik” era of the 1960s, when a more ethno-
graphic, responsive and personal approach was required to investigate the experi-
ence and context of curriculum and teaching, with the aim of improving it. In his
interview, segments of which are included in this volume, he notes:
When I got here [University of Illinois], the action was “Post-Sputnik” curriculum reform—
new mathematics, new English, new physics and the like. And they needed evaluation help,
or at least the government, the National Science Foundation, particularly, required some
involvement in evaluation. And, much to my surprise, the evaluation kinds of things that
came to my mind from the background in testing, answered all too few of the questions the
curriculum developers and sponsors wanted from the evaluation work.
Perhaps the most political role of case study research is its ultimate purpose and
audience, and its ability to advocate for and influence changes in social practices
and policies. Yin’s first qualifier for an exemplary case study is that it be of general
public interest and its underlying issues be of national importance “either in theo-
retical terms or in policy or practical terms” (Yin, 2014, p. 185). Robert Yin bridged
the gap between quantitative and qualitative case studies by merging experimental
field research methods in psychology and urban studies. In this, he has carefully
preserved an aspect of rigour so that case study can be defended as an acceptable
research methodology. His work in advancing the quality of case study methodol-
ogy in nursing practice and health services research has, as its ultimate purpose, the
need to understand the complex “mega-systems” of managed care systems. He notes:
[T]he systems’ rules are in a high-flux state, continually and rapidly changing…important
corporate affiliations and motivations are extremely difficult to track, much less understand.
All of these conditions favor the use of case studies, over other empirical methods, to gain
insight into these mega-systems and to assess them. (Yin, 1999, p. 1209)
An interesting example of case study research, intentionally tied to social policy

change, is the “At Home” study on homelessness in Canada, funded by the Mental
Health Commission of Canada. This research documented 47 video case studies of
homeless people participating in a controlled study, with the cases shared via an
interactive web-based platform. At the end of the study, data was tabulated and pub-
lished, and the findings were used to advocate new ways of dealing with mental
illness and homelessness (National Film Board of Canada, 2012). Thus, case study
research involves the study of an issue explored through one or more cases within a
The Political Context 247
bounded system, often represented by a setting or context. Although Stake (2005)

states that case study research is not a methodology but a choice of what is to be
studied, a case within a bounded system, other scholars present it as a strategy of
inquiry, a methodology, or a comprehensive research strategy (Denzin & Lincoln,
2005; Merriam, 1998; Yin, 2012). Professor Stake comments on this in the video-clip.

(▶ https://doi.org/10.1007/000-6d4)
In this video-clip, Professor Stake addresses the difficulty of popularizing the

concept of case study as a methodology because, as he attests, there is an appetite
for answers and explanations for improving systems; however, using case study
research may or may not be appropriate to the task at hand. Professor Stake enter-
tains no doubts regarding the notion that a policy maker, board or executive commit-
tee may be better served with an examination of case studies, whether they are done
by a researcher or not. However, questions such as “What are the transactions?
What is going on now? What are the problems? and Why can’t we get them solved?”
continue to abound.
Perhaps such questions persist as a function of issues regarding the overall gen-
eralizability of the case study, itself. While case study researchers continue to have
a great deal to offer, it remains difficult to promote the idea that—by sticking closely
to an individual case, attempting to record the system or the context as soon as it
becomes evident, and endeavouring to achieve a more thorough understanding of
how the situation is causing things to be the way they are—case study research has
mastered the issue of validity. Unfortunately, case study results are unlikely to be
transportable or generalizable, simply because case studies, by their very nature,
tend to be particularistic. Consequently, the “right” answer, the magic bullet that
will resolve the issues, may be found elsewhere. According to Robert Stake, the
issue of generalizability is paradoxical. So, the questions remains—what can a per-
son generalize from this kind of research?
The answer is complex. The answer, with case study research, does not lie within
a specific tactic that either seems to be working or preventing good work within any
given situation; it is the idea of a confluence of community, personal, political and
economic influences that all play upon the situation. Such details are not replicable.
However, the complexity of these forces is replicable. Professor Stake notes that this
complexity may be found in quantitative research, as well. It is not the issue that
quantitative researchers are incapable of drawing direction from these forces,
because they do. They manage to establish a diversity of cases in their research that
is extremely valuable for understanding both the limitations and the power of
generalization.
The experiential account that one may obtain from a case study, however, is very
necessary. How things happen over time, the degree to which they are subject to
personality and how they are only gradually perceived as tolerable or intolerable by
the communities and groups involved is extremely important. Robert Stake believes
that case study researchers have a great deal to share with other researchers. He uses
the example of a biographer who is able to capture some of the same “something”
represented in case study research, simply because he or she is actually, in fact,
doing case studies, even though it may be identified by a different name. Rules relat-
ing to case study research may be imposed for these researchers, but such rules are
sensitive to phenomena that the case study strives to represent.
As a caveat, Professor Stake notes that, in defining a case study, he is very reti-
cent to include a phenomenon as a possible case. As an example, he suggests that
teacher professional development, either on an individual or collective basis, is not
what he would consider appropriate for a case study, given the methods attached to
this particular methodology. For this endeavour, there are other methods that could
be considered superior. However, if one were to take a particular situation, perhaps
that of a professional person participating in professional development or a profes-
sional development program that is defined in space and time, and in terms of per-
sonalities, this may represent a possibility for a case study. The differences may be
subtle, but the chief difference lies within the particularity of the instance. The gen-
eral phenomenon, however, is more likely to be generalizable, even though the case
remains particular.
This is a major source of criticism for case study research. Professor Stake para-
phrases the critique in saying that case study researchers are not adequately proffer-
ing explanations as to how valuable an understanding of case study research may
be. The rationale, he claims, remains poorly expressed and may, in fact, be impos-
sible to express explicitly, simply because it represents such a natural part of peo-
ple’s lives. An irony exists in claiming that case study is really powerful when it has
not been seen to be powerful in a way that can be appreciated. However, this task
may become less difficult when one begins with an example, such as a portfolio.
Using such an example, one may be able to say, “Look at this case on this child with
autism.” Such particular cases may reveal how the actions of the mother’s and the
teacher’s shift in perspective have allowed the child to be mainstreamed, whereas a
year or two ago that possibility was nonexistent.
The Postmodern Context 249
By making use of dramatic cases such as this, people may conclude that this is
what teachers’ stories in newspapers are for. This begs the question of why one
would require an academic methodology to do what an expert reporter can accom-
plish. As a result, case study researchers strive to identify what it is about the more
disciplined, less entertaining case study while ironically believing that case studies
need to be engaging and entertaining. Professor Stake believes that case study
researchers have not yet made an adequate case in support of this methodology. He
claims that this is the responsibility of the researcher, not the audience nor the crit-
ics, to attest to the justifiability of case study research.
Robert Stake contemplates whether he has changed with respect to presenting a
substantive rationale for case study or making the case better for a research enter-
prise that accepts impressions, conceptualizations or stories that people recount.
Even when the quantitative notion of triangulation is not observed, Professor Stake
claims that he wants something to be included in the case studies that legitimizes or
re-legitimizes the case by including the perspectives of individuals represented by
the case even if, in other circumstances, the individual may believe something
entirely different. What was said in this particular instance of the case stands.
Although Professor Stake concedes that researchers may have gotten better at fram-
ing matters in this way, there is ample room for improvement.
There is a strong correlation among people who choose case studies. There is a
significant consistency among case researchers who try to obtain these impressions
that constitute the data regarding these experiences of the individuals within their
cases. This being said, Professor Stake is inclined to maintain his original definition
of the case as being anything that is looked at in great detail. This may be as elemen-
tary as inspecting a ball bearing or as sophisticated as viewing the university cam-
pus in terms of the number of students from in-state, as opposed to those who are
from out of state. Another example refers to the faculty in terms of whether or not
they are trained to teach, or not trained to teach. Case study research seeks to cate-
gorize many things, but the most important task of the case study researcher is to
strive to understand the research task in terms of a case study that may be indepen-
dent of impressionistic and situational considerations; in short, free of particulari-
ties – at least, insofar as possible.
The Postmodern Context
Aligned with Zygmunt Bauman’s (2000) concept of “liquid modernity,” human life
intersects with the fluid postmodern context, pushing against it, reshaping it. The
case study, while it is a solid, knowable object or episode, studied within an ever-
changing environment, also possesses some of the characteristics of postmodern
consumer culture. The exemplary case study, according to Yin (2009) is not only
engaging, it is also enticing and seducing. It is significant in the sense that the case
must characteristically be unusual, revelatory and/or of general public interest. The
case study’s issues may be nationally important, either in theoretical, political or

practical terms. The case study must be complete in that the boundaries between the
circumstance and its context are given explicit attention. As a result, exhaustive
effort is expended in collecting evidence. The case study is mature in anticipating,
considering and embracing alternative perspectives and rival propositions, includ-
ing those perspectives that may seriously challenge the assumptions of the study.
Thus, case study research is thorough in that it displays sufficient, valid and relevant
evidence to reach independent judgments regarding the merits of the analysis.
Finally, case study research is composed and written in an engaging manner.
Case study research is transportable between paradigms. Robert Yin (2012), for
example, advocates qualitative and quantitative approaches to case studies. He also
proposes several types of case studies for qualitative research. In addition to intrin-
sic and instrumental case studies, Yin (2012) also considers the explanatory, explor-
atory, and descriptive case studies.
Variations Within Case Studies
Explanatory case studies, commonly used in quantitative research, examine the data
closely, at the surface and at a deeper level in order to explain the circumstance in
the data. Explanatory cases are frequently deployed for causal studies where pattern
matching can be used to investigate certain circumstances in complex and multivari-
ate cases. With regards to the explanatory case study, three conditions must be met.
The researchers must, first, ensure they have no means of control over the project,
event or situation that is being viewed as a case; secondly, the project, event or situ-
ation must be a contemporary one, rather than, say, an historical artefact, event or
situation; and, thirdly, in examining the project or circumstance, the researcher must
attempt to explain how or why that particular event or circumstance occurs.
The exploratory case study, on the other hand, investigates a distinct project,
event or situation that is characterized by a lack of detailed preliminary research that
can be tested, or by a particular research environment that limits the choice of
research methodology. Exploratory case studies set out to explore any data serving
as a point of interest to the researcher. This type of case study allows for the explora-
tion and understanding of complex issues and can be considered a robust research
method, particularly when a holistic, in-depth investigation is required. For exam-
ple, a pilot study may be considered an example of an exploratory case study (Yin,
2014) and is crucial in determining the protocol that will be used for the ensuing
study. The basic function of the exploratory case study is to help identify questions
and select types of measurement prior to the main investigation. The primary pitfall
of this type of study is that initial findings may appear convincing enough to be
prematurely released as conclusions.
Descriptive case studies describe natural phenomena, events or situations that
occur within the data in question. The goal, set by the researcher, is to describe the
data as they occur. The challenge of the descriptive case study is that the researcher
The Postmodern Context 251
must begin with a descriptive theory to support the description of the ensuing story.
Should this fail, there is the possibility that the description lacks rigour and that
problems may occur during the project. An example of a descriptive case study may
be a journalistic description of a political scandal, for instance. In such a case,
descriptive theory may be used to examine the depth and scope of the case
under study.
Although single case study research is not a strong basis for generalization to a
larger population of cases, much can be learned from the method. In juxtaposition
to propositional or explicated generalizations (also called assertions), naturalistic
generalizations derived from single case study analysis are those based on tacit
knowledge and personal experience. While assertions may represent confident
statements derived from the findings of the case study, naturalistic generalizations
represent “conclusions arrived at through personal engagement in life’s affairs or by
vicarious experience so well constructed that the person feels as if it happened to
themselves” (Stake, 1995, p. 85). Both types of generalizations can be made by case
study researchers, although naturalistic generalizations can also be made by
the reader.
The exemplary case study is included as a theoretical framework since it goes
beyond the pragmatic approach to case study design and method crafted by Yin
(2009). As Yin notes, by simply mastering the techniques and protocol of case study
research, one may still not produce an exemplary case study or be considered a
virtuoso researcher. However, insights into human and social processes produced by
expert researchers offer lasting contributions to social science research. Ideally,
however, a single case study involves the use of multiple sources of data in order to
achieve a sense of “completeness” that Yin proposes as being an essential quality of
an exemplary case study.
Other researchers, such as McDonough and McDonough (1997), mention other
categories of case study; interpretive and evaluative case studies. Through interpre-
tive case studies, the researcher strives to interpret the data by developing concep-
tual categories, supporting or challenging the assumptions made regarding them. In
evaluative case studies, the researcher goes further by adding his/her judgment to
phenomena found in the data. Robert Yin (2014) offers a note of caution regarding
attempts to separate these categories or to conceive of them as a hierarchical struc-
ture or construct.
One of the more commonly occurring case studies is the ethnographic case
study, identified at the beginning of this chapter. As previously noted, this particular
type of case study makes use of some of the principles of ethnographic research.
Other types of case study, such as the narrative case study, exhibit equally broad
interdisciplinary backgrounds. Additional types of case study research include illus-
trative case studies, cumulative case studies and critical instance case studies, each
of which is customarily selected for use, depending upon the goals of the investiga-
tor. Illustrative case studies are primarily descriptive studies. They typically utilize
one or two instances of an event to reveal the existing situation, serving primarily to
make the unfamiliar familiar and to provide a common language about the topic in
question. Cumulative case studies, akin to collective case studies, serve to aggregate
information from several sites collected at different times. The collection of past
studies may allow for greater generalization without additional cost or time being
required for new, possibly repetitive studies. Critical instance case studies examine
one or more sites for the purpose of either examining a situation of unique interest
with little to no interest in generalization, or to call into question a highly general-
ized or universal assertion. This method is useful for answering cause and effect
questions (Davey, 1991).
Case study research is personal, in-depth research. The concrete case, whether it
is an individual, a group of individuals or a program, is bounded within social,
political, cultural and historical contexts. The places where the case and the context
meet are what case study research reveals, and these revelations may challenge
previously held assumptions and generalizations.
The quality and utility of the research is not based on its reproducibility but on whether or
not the meanings generated, by the researcher or the reader, are valued…. The exercise is
partly commiseration, partly celebration, but always intellectualization, a conveying, a cre-
ating of meaning. (Stake, 1995, p. 135-6)
The Philosophical Context
The philosophical context is an interesting venue to discuss procedures for any par-
ticular methodology. While the procedures themselves may not wax particularly
philosophical, the philosophies underlying not only the procedures (methods) but
also the methodologies themselves are of import. It is always significant that the
various methodologies, while they may share some similar attributes, all have dif-
fering philosophies that determine perspective, context and course of action.
Procedures for conducting a case study vary, depending on the context of the
case, itself. Robert Stake (1995) offers suggestions. First of all, he notes, one must
determine if the case study approach is appropriate for the research problem. The
case study is an appropriate choice if the circumstance chosen for the case exhibits
clearly identifiable boundaries and if the investigator seeks to further a detailed
understanding of the case(s) or a comparison of several cases. A case study is a good
approach when the inquirer has clearly defined cases within determined boundaries
and seeks to provide an in-depth understanding of the cases or a comparison of
more than one case. From this point, the researcher identifies the case(s) that will
serve to provide data. The case may concern one or more individuals or an event,
activity or program. From this point the researcher may consider what type of case
study would be most appropriate, either as a single, collective, single-site or multi-
site study.
Whether using a single or multiple case approach, some general guidelines may
make the process easier. Creating a case study database will increase the reliability
of the entire case study. Raw data are gathered during the study and are available for
independent inspection in a separate database apart from the case study report (Yin,
2014). With the ease of electronic data storage, a separate database can become an
The Philosophical Context 253
institutionalized practice so that external investigators can review the evidence

directly and not be restricted to reading the written report. Establishing a chain of
evidence allows initial research questions to be traceable to conclusions and back
again (Yin, 2014). This chain should be tight enough that no evidence can be lost
through carelessness or bias, thus increasing reliability of information in the case
study, addressing methodological problems of construct and design validity, and
improving the overall quality of the case study. Progressive focusing is another tac-
tic that may take place as the researcher draws understanding from the case study.
Using this strategy, issues or questions gradually become assertions, then “petite”
generalizations (within a single case) and occasionally “grand” generalizations (in
multi-case study research).
Issue questions can evolve within a case as new discoveries are made: they are
etic (the researcher’s external issues) and emic (issues of the “actors” who are inter-
nal to the case). Regarding within-case and cross-case analyses, it is useful to
employ systematic approaches such as thematic coding, tabulation of data, catego-
rization and establishing of an evidence database. The researcher’s observations are
used to make assertions, a summary of interpretations or claims that can influence
policy, procedures and future research (Stake, 1995). Logic model analysis is an
evaluative model that stipulates a complex chain of cause and effect events over an
extended period of time. A linear sequence of dependent and independent variables
in a cause-effect logic pattern, most often depicted graphically in a flow chart,
matches empirically observed events to theoretically predicted events. In collecting
data, regardless of sources of evidence, the researcher may find the development
and use of a case study protocol extremely useful, if not essential. Typical protocols
consist of a set of questions to be addressed while collecting the case study data:
Importantly, the questions in the protocol are directed at the researcher, not at any field
participant. In this sense, the protocol differs entirely from any instrument used in a conven-
tional interview or survey. The protocol’s questions in effect serve as a mental framework,
not unlike similar frameworks held by detectives investigating crimes, by journalists chas-
ing a story, or by clinicians considering different diagnoses based on a patient’s symptoms.
In those situations, a detective, journalist, or clinician may privately entertain one or more
lines of inquiry (including rival hypotheses), but the specific questions posed to any partici-
pant are tuned to each specific interview situation. Thus, the questions as actually verbal-
ized in an interview derive from the line of inquiry (e.g., mental framework) but do not
come from a verbatim script (e.g., questionnaire). (Yin, 2012, p. 14)
Data collection is typically intensive and draws on multiple sources of informa-

tion, such as direct and participant observations, interviews, and documents, includ-
ing multi-media, archival records and physical artefacts, as appropriate (Yin, 2012).
Through this data collection, a detailed description of the case emerges in which the
researcher details aspects of the case, such as the history of the case, the chronology
of events, or a rendering of the daily activities of the case. After this description of
“relatively uncontested data” (Stake, 1995, p. 123), the researcher may choose to
analyze themes or select one or more significant points to focus on. This is not for
the purpose of generalization, but to gain a deeper understanding of complexities
relating to the case (or cases), itself. Where multiple cases have been selected, a
typical process is to provide a detailed description of each case and the themes
found within each case, called a within-case analysis, followed by a thematic analy-
sis across all selected cases, called a cross-case analysis, as well as assertions
regarding the case(s) or an interpretation of the meaning of the case(s). This analytic
strategy, proposed by Yin (2012), allows the researcher to identify issues within
each of the cases in a multiple case study and then to look for common themes that
transcend the cases.
Analysis of the data may be holistic in terms of the entire case or embedded
within a particular aspect of the case (Yin, 2012). In the interpretive phase, the final
phase of case study research, the researcher reports on the meaning of the case,
whether instrumental or intrinsic. Analysis can begin by organizing data into hierar-
chical relationships, matrices, or other arrays (Miles & Huberman, 1994), such as a
word table. Given this or other arrays, several different analytic techniques, such as
pattern matching, explanation building, and time-series analysis, can then be used.
In multiple-case studies, in addition to these techniques used within each single
case, a replication logic, the fourth technique, would then follow should the
researcher choose to duplicate the case.
As ever, case study research is not without its challenges. One such challenge,
frequently hammered home, regards the lack of generalizability across common
cases. Simply because a case study typically deals with only one person, event or
group, one can never truly ascertain whether conclusions drawn from a particular
case apply elsewhere. The results of the study are not generalizable because one can
never know whether the investigated case is representative of a larger body of “simi-
lar” instances.
However, as Robert Stake attests, this is not the goal of case study inquiry. Case
study inquirers examine a case for its particularity, its uniqueness within larger con-
texts, and whatever truths reveal themselves through this process. As Robert Stake
claims, “We seek an accurate but limited understanding. Seldom are we primarily
trying to generalize to other cases. Still, some comparison with other cases is inevi-
table” (1995, p. 134). Also, case studies have often been accused of lack of rigour
(Yin, 2014). Additionally, case studies may be time consuming and difficult to
replicate.
Challenges to and Benefits of Case Study Research
Campbell and Stanley (1966), however temporarily, claimed that case study research
is based on illusory knowledge and, as such, exhibits a total lack of control.
Campbell and Stanley aver that case study methodology has no scientific value and
that it is, in fact, unethical as a method for educational research. As this type of
research gradually became more acceptable to the scientific community, such
unyielding recrimination gradually began to disappear. Eventually, Campbell
recanted his uncompromising position to become a proponent of the methodology,
claiming that naturalistic observation was “the only route to knowledge—noisy,
The Philosophical Context 255
fallible and biased though it be” (Campbell, 1975, p. 179). Undaunted by this con-
version, Matthew Miles (1979) delineated three essential weaknesses in the meth-
odology. According to Miles (1979), within-case analysis was not only primitive
and unmanageable, it also relied too heavily on intuition. Unfortunately, cross-case
analysis was even less reliable, and case study results elicited far more objections
from respondents than survey results, often resulting in legal action against the
research team (Yin, 1981). Thus, the major critiques of case study research are that
it offers a weak basis for generalization from a single case, it is too subjective and
prone to researcher bias in data interpretation, and lacks scientific rigour. Finally,
case studies are often conceived of as being too long and difficult to conduct, and
produce massive amounts of documentation (Yin, 2014).
While that is the bad news, there is also some good news relating to case study
research. First of all, the examination of data is most frequently conducted within
the context of its use (Yin, 2014); that is, within the situation in which the activity
takes place. The researcher, for example, observes the participant or subject within
his or her environment, in contrast with experimentation, which deliberately
attempts to isolate a phenomenon from its surroundings in order to study it more
objectively. Additionally, case studies allow for both qualitative and quantitative
treatments and analysis of data (Yin, 2014). Finally, detailed qualitative accounts
produced in case studies explore or describe the data in real-life environments, as
well as assisting in explaining complexities relating to these real-life situations,
which may not be easily captured through experimental or survey research. In short,
case study methodology tends to bring with it a magnifying glass, as opposed to
other types of inquiry that require a collecting apparatus that prevents researchers
from examining data at the micro-level. Thus, case studies can be a practical solu-
tion when a large sample population is difficult to obtain.
In addition, case study research can capture knowledge gained through both
observation (propositional) and experience (tacit), which can build new, richer
understandings. It also enables naturalistic generalizations to be developed from
such experience and tacit knowledge. While intuitive and empirical in nature, these
naturalistic observations can eventually pass into propositional knowledge. Case
study research is fluid and evolving, allowing for emic issues to arise during the
course of the research.
Seawright and Gerring (2008) suggest that the identification of a case to investi-
gate remains much more involved than choosing an issue to research. A case study
encompasses a problem contextualized around the application of in-depth analysis,
interpretation and discussion, often resulting in specific recommendations for action
or for improving existing conditions (Seawright & Gerring, 2008). While practical
considerations, such as time and access to information can influence case selection,
such issues should not constitute the sole factors used in assessing the methodologi-
cal justification for identifying a particular case to study.
Typical questions addressed in assessing the suitability of case study methodol-
ogy include whether or not the case represents an unusual or atypical example of a
research problem requiring in-depth analysis. Such cases may be representative of
prior investigations because the case study methodology may offer new ways of
understanding the research concern. A second question concerns whether the in-
depth analysis of a case can offer important new insights or illuminates issues that
were previously hidden. As a caveat, it is wise to bear in mind that a thorough litera-
ture review may influence assumptions about new insights or previously hidden
problems that are valid and evidence-based.
Additional questions surround the issue of whether the case offers a counter-
point to prior or prevailing knowledge or assumptions. It is a sad fact that research
on any topic may, over time, develop assumptions based on “common sense” or
outdated information. This may offer an opportunity to “set the record straight” by
challenging old assertions and offering new and valid information. Such a contrar-
ian stance may offer an important way to develop new knowledge and understand-
ings. A more practical question concerns whether the case offers opportunities for
an agenda to pursue social action leading to a problem resolution. A final question
revolves around whether the case offers new directions for future research. In this
sense, case study can be utilized for exploratory research pointing to a need for
further examination of the research problem. Thus, a case study methodology can
be used where few studies exist that predict an outcome or establish a clear under-
standing about how best to proceed in addressing a particular issue.
In an attempt to reveal a series of misconceptions that surround case study
research, Bent Flyvbjerg (2004) notes that general, theoretical, or context-
independent knowledge is often viewed as more valuable than concrete, practical,
context-dependent knowledge. He also notes that it is erroneous to suppose that one
cannot generalize on the basis of an individual case and, therefore, that the case
study cannot contribute to scientific development. Flyvbjerg also contends that the
common assumption that the case study is most useful for generating hypotheses is
ill-founded. He notes that it is also unfounded that the case study is biased toward
verification; that is, a tendency to confirm the researcher’s preconceived notions,
also known as bias confirmation. Finally, he condemns the notion that it is often
difficult to summarize and develop general propositions and theories on the basis of
specific case studies. However, one may strengthen the validity and reliability of
case study research by clarifying issues of case selection, testing and challenging of
existing assumptions, interpreting key findings, and summarizing case outcomes.
Flyvbjerg (2004) thinks of case study research as a complete, in-depth recounting
about specific properties and key characteristics of the subject of analysis applied to
a research problem.
As always, when conducting qualitative research, or any research for that matter,
there are issues to be mindful of and to avoid. Overgeneralization is just one such
entanglement. Because cases studies are based on the analysis of descriptive data,
much depends on the interpretation placed on the acquired data. This means there is
potential for observer bias, as subjective opinions may intrude into the assessment
of what the data means. Since one of the goals of a case study is to lay a foundation
for understanding broader trends and issues applied to similar circumstances, draw-
ing conclusions from case studies must be evidence-based and grounded in the
results of the study. Otherwise, it is mere speculation. Another issue revolves around
a failure to document limitations pertaining to the case under study. Simply because
Feature Article: A Case in Case Study Methodology 257
no single case will reveal everything about a research problem, the researcher must
identify the specific limitations inherent within the research study.
Finally, a failure to extrapolate research implications will assuredly lead to ques-
tions of the validity of the entire analysis. Case study research, as with all research,
demands that the researcher be thorough in considering all possible outcomes or
recommendations derived from the findings. Thus, it behooves the researcher, when
designing the case study, to ensure that all aspects of the issue be thoroughly
addressed in order to prevent gaps in the analysis. Case knowledge is central to
human learning. However, as Flyvbjerg (2004) asserts, staying at the level of ana-
lytical rationality and context-independent facts and rules will limit the researcher
to the beginner’s level. Thus, case study research contributes to the body of context-
dependent knowledge needed for humans and human social systems to improve
and evolve.
As a final word, case studies in research differ from their use in teaching. While
teaching case studies have been a highly popular pedagogical format in many fields,
ranging from business education to science education, the principles involved in
doing case study research contrast with those involved in doing case studies for
teaching. Research in business disciplines is usually based on a positivistic episte-
mology (Chua, 1986), holding that reality is objective and can be discovered and
understood by scientific examination of empirical evidence. However, organiza-
tional behaviour cannot always be easily reduced to simple tests that prove some-
thing to be true or false. Because reality may be objective, but is understood and
interpreted by people who act upon it, critical realism, which addresses the connec-
tion between the natural and social worlds, is a useful basis for analyzing events
within and the environment of an organization (Bhaskar & Danermark, 2006). A
critical case can be defined as having strategic importance relative to a general
problem.
Case studies in management, however, are frequently used to interpret strategies
or relationships, to develop sets of “best practices,” or to analyze internal or external
interactions of a firm (Klonoski, 2013). Case study methodology may also prove
effective for generalizing, using Sir Karl Popper’s (2002) falsification theory, which
forms part of critical reflexivity. Falsification offers one of the most rigorous tests to
which a scientific proposition can be subjected. If just one observation does not fit
the proposition, it is considered invalid and must be revised or rejected.
Feature Article: A Case in Case Study Methodology
The following article offers a comprehensive view of case study methodology. This
perspective comes from the researcher’s point of view and states that there are rela-
tively few requirements that guide case study research. Identified as both a strength
and a weakness, there is a particular need in case studies to be explicit about the
methodological choices one makes. This article illustrates these decisions through a
case study of two mergers in the financial industry in Norway (See A Case in Case
Study Methodology).
Summary: Case Study as Methodology and Method
Qualitative research, in general, has been viewed from many perspectives as being
complex, messy and altogether confusing. “Case study” refers to both a specific
research design, or methodology, and a method of analysis for examining a problem.
While not conducive to generalization, in many cases, a sense of paradox between the
particular and the generalizable is central to case study research. Case study research
may examine an individual person, place, event, organization, action, phenomenon, or
other type of subject, existing in a specific time and place. While case studies may
examine a single subject of analysis, they may also be designed as comparative inves-
tigations that reveal relationships between two or more subjects or topics. Case studies
have held an important position with regard to many disciplines and professions, rang-
ing from psychology, anthropology, sociology, and political science to education,
clinical science, social work and administrative science.
Case study research can boast of a long and distinguished history due to its expo-
sure through numerous disciplines. Le Play first introduced the case-study method
into the social sciences in 1829. Sigmund Freud helped to develop and advance the
concept of case studies. Thomas and Znaniecki mounted a study of Polish peasants
throughout the 1950s, resulting in the five-volume publication of The Polish Peasant
in Europe and America (1918–1920). Hamel, Dufour, and Fortin (1993) trace the
origin of modern social science case studies through Malinowski’s study of the
Trobriand Islands native population. Robert Stake has explored multiple case study
analysis and presents a methodological approach to this type of research. Robert Yin
advocates quantitative, as well as qualitative, approaches to case study research. As
champions of case study research, Stake and Yin exhibit the stance, noted by
Flyvbjerg, of the virtuoso researcher. A series of video-clips, featuring Professor
Emeritus Robert Stake, addresses some of the finer features of case study research
and analysis.
In case study research, the investigator chooses the case, compiling a detailed
description of the case setting, to illustrate an issue. Thus, an in-depth study of a
bounded system, a single case, or multiple cases may be best treated as a case study.
As a bounded “object” or system that contains working “parts” organized around
“issues,” the case study presents an integrated system that is at once purposive and
which also contains a distinctive and concrete identity. The challenge for the
researcher is not to fall into the trap of writing to fit a stereotype. Professor Stake
contends that the case study researcher, as an interpreter, is central to the research
and serves to construct or develop new qualitative knowledge, as a craftsperson or
an artist would, rather than attempting to discover the “truth,” much as a scientist
would. While numerous types of case studies abound, one of the greatest debates
addresses concerns relating to the legitimacy of the case study as a methodology.
Summary: Case Study as Methodology and Method 259
Ridder (2017) distinguishes among four common case study approaches, distin-
guished by the size, or scope, of the bounded case, or by the intent of the case study
analysis, which will identify the case study as either a single instrumental case
study, a collective or multiple case study, or an intrinsic case study. The multi-case
study is a collection of cases bound together by a single category or target phenom-
enon, the “quintain,” which may contain several embedded cases or mini-cases,
each constrained by its unique relationship to the quintain and studied for its indi-
vidual in-depth relevance, complexity and representation of diversity across the
cases. An irony exists in claiming that case study is really powerful when it has not
been seen to be powerful in a way that can be appreciated. Although Robert Stake
concedes that researchers may have gotten better at framing matters in this way,
there is ample room for improvement.
One of the more commonly occurring case studies is the ethnographic case study.
This particular type of case study makes use of some of the principles of ethno-
graphic research. Other types of case study, such as the narrative case study, exhibit
equally broad interdisciplinary backgrounds. Additional types of case study research
include illustrative case studies, cumulative case studies and critical instance case
studies, each of which is custom selected for use, depending upon the goals of the
investigator. Whether using a single or multiple case approach, some general guide-
lines may make the process easier. Case studies allow for both qualitative and quan-
titative treatments and analysis of data. Case studies can offer a practical solution
when a big sample population is difficult to obtain. A feature article offers a com-
prehensive view of case study methodology through a case study of two mergers in
the financial industry in Norway.
Suggestions for Further Reading
Should the reader wish to read further regarding case study inquiry, the following
may be of some usefulness:
Hebert, T. P., & Beardsley, T. M. (2001). Jermaine: A critical case study of a gifted
Black child living in rural poverty. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(2), 85–103.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook
of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–454). Sage.
Stake, R. E. (2008). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 119–149). Sage.
Annotated Bibliography
Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2017). Rethinking case study research: A comparative
approach. Routledge.
Case studies in general, and comparative case studies, in particular, offer an
effective qualitative tool for researching the impact of policy and practice in various
fields of social research, including education. Developed in response to the limita-
tions of traditional case study approaches, comparative case studies are more highly
effective due to their ability to synthesize information across time and space. In
Rethinking Case Study Research: A Comparative Approach, Bartlett and Vavrus
describe, explain and illustrate horizontal, vertical and transverse axes of
comparative case studies. This volume would be of great value to anyone interested
in the field of comparative case study research. Replete with examples and activities
from anthropology, development studies and policy studies, this volume is written
for researchers and graduate students in the fields of education and the interpretive
social sciences.
Bulmer, M. (1986). The Chicago school of sociology: Institutionalization, diversity,
and the rise of sociological research. University of Chicago Press.
Martin Bulmer has written a fascinating history of the Chicago School of socio-
logical research during the first half of the past century. He offers more than the
usual series of biographies of outstanding scholars, but also admits that focusing on
an institution, rather than on its key members, is challenging and problematic. This
challenge is addressed through his reassessment of the Chicago School. Using the
school as a case study, Bulmer considers how the institutional framework of sociol-
ogy developed. As well, the text reveals a sub-plot running throughout—the inter-
disciplinary nature of social science at Chicago. Thus, the link between the sociology
department and other social science departments at the University of Chicago, nota-
bly politics, is explored. A wide range of original documentary sources is employed,
as are standard secondary sources. In so doing, the author of this volume provides
an excellent historical account of the work of sociologists and others at the University
of Chicago to 1940.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for research. Houghton Mifflin.
This volume constitutes a survey drawn from science research and deals with
correlational, true experimental, and quasi-experimental designs. This book also
proposes a number of methodological recommendations. The survey is drawn from
the sciences in general and, as such, the broad methodological recommendations
are correspondingly appropriate. A number of experimental designs, in which vari-
ables are manipulated, are explored with respect to common threats to valid infer-
ences. It bodes well for the researcher to distinguish and understand the particular
role of this volume. It is not a volume on experimental design, which claims the
experimenter has complete mastery of the processes involved and can schedule
treatments and measurements for optimal statistical efficiency. This book deals
with the complexity of experimental and quasi-experimental design emerging from
the intransigency of the environment because of the experimenter’s lack of com-
plete control.
Hamel, J., Dufour, S., & Fortin, D. (1993). Case study methods. Sage.
Although case study methods currently and historically remain a controversial
approach to data collection, case study methodology is widely recognized in many
social science studies. This remains particularly true when in-depth explanations of
social behaviour are sought. In this introduction to understanding, researching and
doing case studies in the social sciences, Hamel, Dufour and Fortin outline a num-
ber of differing traditions of case study research, including the Chicago School of
Sociology, the anthropological case studies of Malinowski, and the French Le Play
school tradition. He shows how each has been developed, adjusted and practiced
over time. Suggestions regarding the practice of case studies are made for the nov-
ice reader. An additional feature is the extensive bibliography on case study meth-
ods in social science that allows for further exploration of the topic. This volume is
useful for both the advanced researcher and student of case study methodology alike.
McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research methods for English language
teachers. Routledge.
This book offers a lively introduction to the research methods and techniques
available to English language teachers wishing to investigate aspects of their own
practice. Although designed explicitly for English language instructors, this volume
addresses qualitative and quantitative research methods and includes sections on
observation, introspection, diary studies, experiments, interviews, questionnaires,
numerical techniques and case study research. Each method is illustrated with
examples in language teaching contexts. Techniques of data collection and analysis
are also introduced. The authors focus particularly on research in the classroom, on
tests, materials, the effects of innovations and discuss methods appropriate to
research in various collaborative modes. The book is ideal for teachers on initial
training and post-experience courses, students on degree programs in applied lin-
guistics and TEFL and, of course, practicing teachers with an interest in research
methods in language teaching.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in educa-
tion. Jossey-Bass.
This volume represents an invaluable resource that promises to open up the con-
ceptual world of qualitative research and provide step-by-step directions needed to
translate those concepts into practice. Over the past several decades, significant
advances in the field of qualitative research have transpired. To meet the demand for
a book that reflects these important changes, Merriam has completely revised and
updated her classic work. As a timely, authoritative and approachable vol-
ume, Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education is a practical
resource that offers the information and guidance needed to manage all phases of
the qualitative and case study research process. This book is recommended for any-
one seeking knowledge about qualitative research and case study analysis. This
book exhibits the author’s mastery of the explanation of new terms, so that novice
readers do not need to struggle to understand jargon. The author has provided an
array of further reading materials to consult.
Popper, K. (2002). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge.
Routledge.
Conjectures and Refutations is one of Sir Karl Popper’s most wide-ranging and
popular works, notable not only for its acute insight into the way scientific knowl-
edge grows, but also for applying those insights to politics and to history. It provides
one of the clearest and most accessible statements of the fundamental ideas that
guide his work. Not only our knowledge, but also aims and standards, grow through
an unending process of trial and error. First published in 1963, this book contains a
collection of Popper’s lectures and papers that summarize his views on the philoso-
phy of science. Popper suggested that all scientific theories are, by their very nature,
conjectures and are, therefore, inherently fallible. Refutation of old theory is the
paramount process of scientific discovery simply because, should any new theory
survive such refutations, it would represent greater plausibility and, therefore,
would appear to be closer to the “truth.”
Rolls, G. (2005). Classic case studies in psychology. Hodder Education.
This collection of case studies provides a compelling insight into the human
mind. Some are well-known case studies that have informed clinical practice, while
others are relatively unknown. For this edition, Rolls has added recent research find-
ings on each case study, plus four brand new cases. No prior knowledge of psychol-
ogy is required. For those who wish to use this book as part of their studies, or who
are keen to learn more, multiple choice questions, further reading, helpful web
links, and self-assessment questions are all available. Prepare to be amazed! Among
case studies presented in this volume are narratives about a man who lived with a
hole in his head, a boy raised as a girl, a woman with multiple personalities, and a
man with no brain. This fascinating collection of human stories is an excellent refer-
ence book, as well as a fascinating read that scholars, researchers and the general
public alike will appreciate.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press.
Researchers in education and social science have pondered for many years over
how to employ multiple cases and come up with viable conclusions. Robert Stake’s
careful analysis lays out problems and pitfalls of such an enterprise. He offers mas-
terful, amply illustrated, easily understood, and reproducible solutions. For those
who study multiple sites, this is an enormous gift that analyzes and teaches, simul-
taneously. Robert Stake takes a murky research problem, such as how to integrate
multiple case studies that may or may not have a common subject, and shows us
how to solve it. This book would be excellent supplementary reading for a course in
qualitative research methods. It has the capacity to provide students with an appre-
ciation of the difficulties and possibilities of drawing conclusions from words. This
book fills a major gap in the qualitative research and evaluation literature. Although
multi-case studies are a commonly used strategy, no published work provides such
a comprehensive, in-depth and practical guide to the conduct of such studies.
Swanborn, P. G. (2010). Case study research: What, why and how? Sage.
This volume joins the collection of scholarly resources available to students,
researchers and practitioners interested in doing case studies. The book offers pre-
cise advice regarding case study design, steps to be followed in conducting case
study research, and a secure epistemological/methodological space in which appro-
priate strategies lead to resolution. Although the author does not position himself
within any particular research epistemology, this text is firmly embedded within an
empirical/analytical paradigm. The author notes that, while this book does not rep-
resent a handbook on qualitative methods, it is useful for graduate courses with a
strong emphasis on quantitative research. For this reason, this volume may be of
special interest to readers who would like to compare qualitative and quantitative
approaches to case study research.
Thomas, W. I., & Znaniecki, F. (1996). The Polish peasant in Europe and America:
A classic work in immigration history. University of Illinois.
Thomas and Znaniecki’s The Polish Peasant in Europe and America emphasises
the importance of people representing their own lives. It is written as autobiographi-
cal life histories revealed through letters and other correspondences. This volume
emphasizes Thomas and Znaniecki’s conceptualization of the self around ideas of
“social becoming,” as revealed by the relational and sequential nature illustrated in
letters and correspondences. The ways in which people represent themselves and
their lives in circumstances of social change and mass migration provide an index to
the times and represent what “self” is and becomes under such conditions. Thomas
and Znaniecki’s notion of self is a socially embedded, relational, situational and
temporally located self, which reflects the outer world of happenings and situations.
“Self” is constructed and eventuates in situational, relational and responsive ways,
with the representational forms of life writing providing the key to analysis.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.
Robert Yin’s Case Study Research: Design and Methods continues to be a semi-
nal text for researchers and students engaged in case study research. Since the
book’s first release, case study research has gained considerable acceptance as a
research methodology, as a result of Yin’s unyielding position that case study be
considered a separate and all-encompassing methodology with its own research
design. This current edition is influenced by significant advances in case study
research and remains a definitive guide to designing rigorous and methodologically
sound case studies. In this volume, Yin links theory and practice by presenting the
breadth of case study research and its historical significance at a practical level.
Ultimately, Yin argues that case study research is a challenging endeavour that
hinges upon the researcher’s skills and expertise. As such, this edition includes anal-
ysis of difficult concepts to guide researchers and students in carrying out more
rigorous case study research.
Questions for Further Study
• What differences exist between case study methodology and other research
methodologies that you have studied to date?
• Identify some of the different types of case studies and discuss their applicability
to specific circumstances.
• Identify strengths and limitations of case study analysis.
• Reflect on the historical facets of case study research. How have these assisted or
limited case study research?
• How do you view the future of case study analysis?
A Case in Case Study Methodology
Christine Benedichte Meyer

Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration
Meyer, C. B. (2001). A Case in Case Study Methodology. Field Methods 13(4),
329-352.
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive view of the case study
process from the researcher’s perspective, emphasizing methodological consider-
ations. As opposed to other qualitative or quantitative research strategies, such as
grounded theory or surveys, there are virtually no specific requirements guiding
case research. This is both the strength and the weakness of this approach. It is a
strength because it allows tailoring the design and data collection procedures to the
research questions. On the other hand, this approach has resulted in many poor case
studies, leaving it open to criticism, especially from the quantitative field of research.
This article argues that there is a particular need in case studies to be explicit about
the methodological choices one makes. This implies discussing the wide range of
decisions concerned with design requirements, data collection procedures, data
analysis, and validity and reliability. The approach here is to illustrate these deci-
sions through a particular case study of two mergers in the financial industry
in Norway.
In the past few years, a number of books have been published that give useful
guidance in conducting qualitative studies (Gummesson 1988; Cassell & Symon
1994; Miles & Huberman 1994; Creswell 1998; Flick 1998; Rossman & Rallis
1998; Bryman & Burgess 1999; Marshall & Rossman 1999; Denzin & Lincoln
2000). One approach often mentioned is the case study (Yin 1989). Case studies are
widely used in organizational studies in the social science disciplines of sociology,
industrial relations, and anthropology (Hartley 1994). Such a study consists of
detailed investigation of one or more organizations, or groups within organizations,
with a view to providing an analysis of the context and processes involved in the
phenomenon under study.
As opposed to other qualitative or quantitative research strategies, such as
grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967) or surveys (Nachmias & Nachmias
1981), there are virtually no specific requirements guiding case research. Yin (1989)
and Eisenhardt (1989) give useful insights into the case study as a research strategy,
but leave most of the design decisions on the table. This is both the strength and the
weakness of this approach. It is a strength because it allows tailoring the design and
data collection procedures to the research questions. On the other hand, this
approach has resulted in many poor case studies, leaving it open to criticism, espe-
cially from the quantitative field of research (Cook and Campbell 1979). The fact
that the case study is a rather loose design implies that there are a number of choices
that need to be addressed in a principled way.
A Case in Case Study Methodology 265
Although case studies have become a common research strategy, the scope of
methodology sections in articles published in journals is far too limited to give the
readers a detailed and comprehensive view of the decisions taken in the particular
studies, and, given the format of methodology sections, will remain so. The few
books (Yin 1989, 1993; Hamel, Dufour, & Fortin 1993; Stake 1995) and book chap-
ters on case studies (Hartley 1994; Silverman 2000) are, on the other hand, mainly
normative and span a broad range of different kinds of case studies. One exception
is Pettigrew (1990, 1992), who places the case study in the context of a research
tradition (the Warwick process research).
Given the contextual nature of the case study and its strength in addressing con-
temporary phenomena in real-life contexts, I believe that there is a need for articles
that provide a comprehensive overview of the case study process from the research-
er’s perspective, emphasizing methodological considerations. This implies address-
ing the whole range of choices concerning specific design requirements, data
collection procedures, data analysis, and validity and reliability.
WHY A CASE STUDY?
Case studies are tailor-made for exploring new processes or behaviors or ones that
are little understood (Hartley 1994). Hence, the approach is particularly useful for
responding to how and why questions about a contemporary set of events (Leonard-
Barton 1990). Moreover, researchers have argued that certain kinds of information
can be difficult or even impossible to tackle by means other than qualitative
approaches such as the case study (Sykes 1990). Gummesson (1988:76) argues that
an important advantage of case study research is the opportunity for a holistic view
of the process: “The detailed observations entailed in the case study method enable
us to study many different aspects, examine them in relation to each other, view the
process within its total environment and also use the researchers’ capacity for ‘ver-
stehen.’ ”
The contextual nature of the case study is illustrated in Yin’s (1993:59) definition
of a case study as an empirical inquiry that “investigates a contemporary phenom-
enon within its real-life context and addresses a situation in which the boundaries
between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.”
The key difference between the case study and other qualitative designs such as
grounded theory and ethnography (Glaser & Strauss 1967; Strauss & Corbin 1990;
Gioia & Chittipeddi 1991) is that the case study is open to the use of theory or con-
ceptual categories that guide the research and analysis of data. In contrast, grounded
theory or ethnography presupposes that theoretical perspectives are grounded in and
emerge from firsthand data. Hartley (1994) argues that without a theoretical frame-
work, the researcher is in severe danger of providing description without meaning.
Gummesson (1988) says that a lack of preunderstanding will cause the researcher to
spend considerable time gathering basic information. This preunderstanding may
arise from general knowledge such as theories, models, and concepts or from
specific knowledge of institutional conditions and social patterns. According to

Gummesson, the key is not to require researchers to have split but dual personali-
ties: “Those who are able to balance on a razor’s edge using their pre-understanding
without being its slave” (p. 58).
DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATIVE STUDY
The study that will be used for illustrative purposes is a comparative and longitudi-
nal case study of organizational integration in mergers and acquisitions taking place
in Norway. The study had two purposes: (1) to identify contextual factors and fea-
tures of integration that facilitated or impeded organizational integration, and (2) to
study how the three dimensions of organizational integration (integration of tasks,
unification of power, and integration of cultures and identities) interrelated and
evolved over time. Examples of contextual factors were relative power, degree of
friendliness, and economic climate. Integration features included factors such as
participation, communication, and allocation of positions and functions.
Mergers and acquisitions are inherently complex. Researchers in the field have
suggested that managers continuously underestimate the task of integrating the
merging organizations in the postintegration process (Haspeslaph & Jemison 1991).
The process of organizational integration can lead to sharp interorganizational con-
flict as the different top management styles, organizational and work unit cultures,
systems, and other aspects of organizational life come into contact (Blake &
Mounton 1985; Schweiger & Walsh 1990; Cartwright & Cooper 1993). Furthermore,
cultural change in mergers and acquisitions is compounded by additional uncertain-
ties, ambiguities, and stress inherent in the combination process (Buono &
Bowditch 1989).
I focused on two combinations: one merger and one acquisition. The first case
was a merger between two major Norwegian banks, Bergen Bank and DnC (to be
named DnB), that started in the late 1980s. The second case was a study of a major
acquisition in the insurance industry (i.e., Gjensidige’s acquisition of Forenede),
that started in the early 1990s. Both combinations aimed to realize operational syn-
ergies though merging the two organizations into one entity. This implied disruption
of organizational boundaries and threat to the existing power distribution and orga-
nizational cultures.
The study of integration processes in mergers and acquisitions illustrates the
need to find a design that opens for exploration of sensitive issues such as power
struggles between the two merging organizations. Furthermore, the inherent com-
plexity in the integration process, involving integration of tasks, unification of
power, and cultural integration stressed the need for in-depth study of the phenom-
enon over time. To understand the cultural integration process, the design also had
to be linked to the past history of the two organizations.
DESIGN DECISIONS
In the introduction, I stressed that a case is a rather loose design that requires that a
number of design choices be made. In this section, I go through the most important
choices I faced in the study of organizational integration in mergers and acquisi-
tions. These include: (1) selection of cases; (2) sampling time; (3) choosing busi-
ness areas, divisions, and sites; and (4) selection of and choices regarding data
collection procedures, interviews, documents, and observation.
Selection of Cases
There are several choices involved in selecting cases. First, there is the question
of how many cases to include. Second, one must sample cases and decide on a unit
of analysis. I will explore these issues subsequently.
Single or Multiple Cases
Case studies can involve single or multiple cases. The problem of single cases is
limitations in generalizability and several information-processing biases
(Eisenhardt 1989).
One way to respond to these biases is by applying a multi-case approach (Leonard-Barton
1990). Multiple cases augment external validity and help guard against observer biases.
Moreover, multi-case sampling adds confidence to findings. By looking at a range of similar
and contrasting cases, we can understand a single-case finding, grounding it by specifying
how and where and, if possible, why it behaves as it does. (Miles & Huberman 1994)
Given these limitations of the single case study, it is desirable to include more
than one case study in the study. However, the desire for depth and a pluralist per-
spective and tracking the cases over time implies that the number of cases must be
fairly few. I chose two cases, which clearly does not support generalizability any
more than does one case, but allows for comparison and contrast between the cases
as well as a deeper and richer look at each case.
Originally, I planned to include a third case in the study. Due to changes in man-
agement during the initial integration process, my access to the case was limited and
I left this case entirely. However, a positive side effect was that it allowed a deeper
investigation of the two original cases and in hindsight turned out to be a good
decision.
Sampling Cases
The logic of sampling cases is fundamentally different from statistical sampling.
The logic in case studies involves theoretical sampling, in which the goal is to
choose cases that are likely to replicate or extend the emergent theory or to fill theo-
retical categories and provide examples for polar types (Eisenhardt 1989). Hence,
whereas quantitative sampling concerns itself with representativeness, qualitative
sampling seeks information richness and selects the cases purposefully rather than
randomly (Crabtree and Miller 1992).
The choice of cases was guided by George (1979) and Pettigrew’s (1990) recom-
mendations. The aim was to find cases that matched the three dimensions in the
dependent variable and provided variation in the contextual factors, thus represent-
ing polar cases.
To match the choice of outcome variable, organizational integration, I chose
cases in which the purpose was to fully consolidate the merging parties’ opera-
tions. A full consolidation would imply considerable disruption in the organiza-
tional boundaries and would be expected to affect the task-related, political, and
cultural features of the organizations. As for the contextual factors, the two cases
varied in contextual factors such as relative power, friendliness, and economic
climate. The DnB merger was a friendly combination between two equal partners
in an unfriendly economic climate. Gjensidige’s acquisition of Forenede was, in
contrast, an unfriendly and unbalanced acquisition in a friendly economic climate.
Unit of Analysis
Another way to respond to researchers’ and respondents’ biases is to have more
than one unit of analysis in each case (Yin 1993). This implies that, in addition to
developing contrasts between the cases, researchers can focus on contrasts within
the cases (Hartley 1994). In case studies, there is a choice of a holistic or embedded
design (Yin 1989). A holistic design examines the global nature of the phenomenon,
whereas an embedded design also pays attention to subunit(s).
I used an embedded design to analyze the cases (i.e., within each case, I also gave
attention to subunits and subprocesses). In both cases, I compared the combination
processes in the various divisions and local networks. Moreover, I compared three
distinct change processes in DnB: before the merger, during the initial combination,
and two years after the merger. The overall and most important unit of analysis in
the two cases was, however, the integration process.
Sampling Time
According to Pettigrew (1990), time sets a reference for what changes can be
seen and how those changes are explained. When conducting a case study, there are
several important issues to decide when sampling time. The first regards how many
times data should be collected, while the second concerns when to enter the organi-
zations. There is also a need to decide whether to collect data on a continuous basis
or in distinct periods.
Number of data collections. I studied the process by collecting real time and
retrospective data at two points in time, with one-and-a-half- and two-year intervals
in the two cases. Collecting data twice had some interesting implications for the
interpretations of the data. During the first data collection in the DnB study, for
example, I collected retrospective data about the premerger and initial combination
phase and real-time data about the second step in the combination process.
Although I gained a picture of how the employees experienced the second stage
of the combination process, it was too early to assess the effects of this process at
that stage. I entered the organization two years later and found interesting effects
that I had not anticipated the first time. Moreover, it was interesting to observe how
people’s attitudes toward the merger processes changed over time to be more posi-
tive and less emotional.
When to enter the organizations. It would be desirable to have had the opportu-
nity to collect data in the precombination processes. However, researchers are rarely
given access in this period due to secrecy. The emphasis in this study was to focus
on the postcombination process. As such, the precombination events were classified
as contextual factors. This implied that it was most important to collect real-time
data after the parties had been given government approval to merge or acquire. What
would have been desirable was to gain access earlier in the postcombination pro-
cess. This was not possible because access had to be negotiated. Due to the change
of CEO in the middle of the merger process and the need for renegotiating access,
this took longer than expected.
Regarding the second case, I was restricted by the time frame of the study. In
essence, I had to choose between entering the combination process as soon as gov-
ernmental approval was given, or entering the organization at a later stage. In light
of the previous studies in the field that have failed to go beyond the initial two years,
and given the need to collect data about the cultural integration process, I chose the
latter strategy. And I decided to enter the organizations at two distinct periods of
time rather than on a continuous basis.
There were several reasons for this approach, some methodological and some
practical. First, data collection on a continuous basis would have required use of
extensive observation that I didn’t have access to, and getting access to two data
collections in DnB was difficult in itself. Second, I had a stay abroad between the
first and second data collection in Gjensidige. Collecting data on a continuous
basis would probably have allowed for better mapping of the ongoing integration
process, but the contrasts between the two different stages in the integration pro-
cess that I wanted to elaborate would probably be more difficult to detect. In
Table 1 I have listed the periods of time in which I collected data in the two
combinations.
Table 1 Periods of Time for Studying the Two Combinations

Bergen Bank–DnC Gjensidige-Forenede
Announcement of intention to merge/ October 1989 December 1991
acquire
Government approval February 1990 June 1992
First data collection Autumn 1991/Winter Winter 1993/Spring
1992 1994
Second data collection Spring 1994 Autumn 1995
Sampling Business Areas, Divisions, and Sites
Even when the cases for a study have been chosen, it is often necessary to make fur-
ther choices within each case to make the cases researchable. The most important
criteria that set the boundaries for the study are importance or criticality, relevance,
and representativeness. At the time of the data collection, my criteria for making these
decisions were not as conscious as they may appear here. Rather, being restricted by
time and my own capacity as a researcher, I had to limit the sites and act instinctively.
In both cases, I decided to concentrate on the core businesses (criticality criterion) and
left out the business units that were only mildly affected by the integration process
(relevance criterion). In the choice of regional offices, I used the representativeness
criterion as the number of offices widely exceeded the number of sites possible to
study. In making these choices, I relied on key informants in the organizations.
SELECTION OF DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES
The choice of data collection procedures should be guided by the research question
and the choice of design. The case study approach typically combines data collec-
tion methods such as archives, interviews, questionnaires, and observations (Yin
1989). This triangulated methodology provides stronger substantiation of constructs
and hypotheses. However, the choice of data collection methods is also subject to
constraints in time, financial resources, and access.
I chose a combination of interviews, archives, and observation, with main
emphasis on the first two. Conducting a survey was inappropriate due to the lack of
established concepts and indicators. The reason for limited observation, on the other
hand, was due to problems in obtaining access early in the study and time and
resource constraints. In addition to choosing among several different data collection
methods, there are a number of choices to be made for each individual method.
Interviews
When relying on interviews as the primary data collection method, the issue of
building trust between the researcher and the interviewees becomes very important.
I addressed this issue by several means. First, I established a procedure of how to
approach the interviewees. In most cases, I called them first, then sent out a letter
explaining the key features of the project and outlining the broad issues to be
addressed in the interview. In this letter, the support from the institution’s top man-
agement was also communicated. In most cases, the top management’s support of
the project was an important prerequisite for the respondent’s input. Some inter-
viewees did, however, fear that their input would be open to the top management
without disguising the information source. Hence, it became important to commu-
nicate how I intended to use and store the information.
To establish trust, I also actively used my preunderstanding of the context in the
first case and the phenomenon in the second case. As I built up an understanding of
the cases, I used this information to gain confidence. The active use of my preunder-
standing did, however, pose important challenges in not revealing too much of the
research hypotheses and in balancing between asking open-ended questions and
appearing knowledgeable.
There are two choices involved in conducting interviews. The first concerns the
sampling of interviewees. The second is that you must decide on issues such as the
structure of the interviews, use of tape recorder, and involvement of other researchers.
Sampling Interviewees
Following the desire for detailed knowledge of each case and for grasping differ-
ent participant’s views the aim was, in line with Pettigrew (1990), to apply a plural-
ist view by describing and analyzing competing versions of reality as seen by actors
in the combination processes.
I used four criteria for sampling informants. First, I drew informants from popula-
tions representing multiple perspectives. The first data collection in DnB was primarily
focused on the top management level. Moreover, most middle managers in the first data
collection were employed at the head offices, either in Bergen or Oslo. In the second
data collection, I compensated for this skew by including eight local middle managers
in the sample. The difference between the number of employees interviewed in DnB and
Gjensidige was primarily due to the fact that Gjensidige has three unions, whereas DnB
only has one. The distribution of interviewees is outlined in Table 2.
The second criterion was to use multiple informants. According to Glick et al.
(1990), an important advantage of using multiple informants is that the validity of
information provided by one informant can be checked against that provided by
other informants. Moreover, the validity of the data used by the researcher can be
enhanced by resolving the discrepancies among different informants’ reports.
Hence, I selected multiple respondents from each perspective.
Table 2 Distribution of Interviewees

DnB Gjensidige Total
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2
Level of organization
Top management/board 13 7 10 5 35
Middle management 4 10 8 2 24
Union representative and employees 3 3 11 2 19
Organizational affiliation
Acquirer 10 7 15 4 36
Acquired company 9 11 12 5 47
Neither 1 2 2 0 5
Locales
Oslo 13 12 11 3 39
Bergen 6 2 0 0 8
Trondheim 0 0 10 3 13
Locales outside headquarter cities 1 6 8 3 18
Total 60 20 29 9 78
Third, I focused on key informants who were expected to be knowledgeable

about the combination process. These people included top management members,
managers, and employees involved in the integration project. To validate the infor-
mation from these informants, I also used a fourth criterion by selecting managers
and employees who had been affected by the process but who were not involved in
the project groups.
Structured versus unstructured. In line with the explorative nature of the study,
the goal of the interviews was to see the research topic from the perspective of the
interviewee, and to understand why he or she came to have this particular perspec-
tive. To meet this goal, King (1994:15) recommends that one have “a low degree of
structure imposed on the interviewer, a preponderance of open questions, a focus on
specific situations and action sequences in the world of the interviewee rather than
abstractions and general opinions.” In line with these recommendations, the collec-
tion of primary data in this study consists of unstructured interviews.
Using tape recorders and involving other researchers. The majority of the inter-
views were tape-recorded, and I could thus concentrate fully on asking questions
and responding to the interviewees’ answers. In the few interviews that were not
tape-recorded, most of which were conducted in the first phase of the DnB-study,
two researchers were present. This was useful as we were both able to discuss the
interviews later and had feedback on the role of an interviewer.
In hindsight, however, I wish that these interviews had been tape-recorded to
maintain the level of accuracy and richness of data. Hence, in the next phases of data
collection, I tape-recorded all interviews, with two exceptions (people who strongly
opposed the use of this device). All interviews that were tape-recorded were tran-
scribed by me in full, which gave me closeness and a good grasp of the data.
Documents
When organizations merge or make acquisitions, there are often a vast number of
documents to choose from to build up an understanding of what has happened and
to use in the analyses. Furthermore, when firms make acquisitions or merge, they
often hire external consultants, each of whom produces more documents. Due to
time constraints, it is seldom possible to collect and analyze all these documents,
and thus the researcher has to make a selection.
The choice of documentation was guided by my previous experience with merger
and acquisition processes and the research question. Hence, obtaining information
on the postintegration process was more important than gaining access to the due-
diligence analysis. As I learned about the process, I obtained more documents on
specific issues. I did not, however, gain access to all the documents I asked for, and,
in some cases, documents had been lost or shredded.
The documents were helpful in a number of ways. First, and most important,
they were used as inputs to the interview guide and saved me time, because I did not
have to ask for facts in the interviews. They were also useful for tracing the history
of the organizations and statements made by key people in the organizations. Third,
the documents were helpful in counteracting the biases of the interviews. A list of
the documents used in writing the cases is shown in Table 3.
Table 3 Documents Used in Analysis of the Combinations

Gjensidige DnB
Strategic plan for 2000 McKinsey reports from the premerger phase
Reports from the integration project groups Reports from the integration project groups
Report from the recruiting committee Guidelines for selecting and positioning in
1990
Internal letters Minutes from top management integration
groups
Letters to the Norwegian authorities Written submissions for the government
approval application
Declaration of intent Merger prospect
Internal job announcement magazines Articles from the press
Report from employee survey Internal newsletters Annual reports
Internal newsletters Publications and documents from the
banking crisis projects
Articles from the press
Annual reports
Union magazines
Publication from the Association of Norwegian
Insurance Companies
Observation
The major strength of direct observation is that it is unobtrusive and does not
require direct interaction with participants (Adler and Adler 1994). Observation
produces rigor when it is combined with other methods. When the researcher has
access to group processes, direct observation can illuminate the discrepancies
between what people said in the interviews and casual conversations and what they
actually do (Pettigrew 1990).
As with interviews, there are a number of choices involved in conducting obser-
vations. Although I did some observations in the study, I used interviews as the key
data collection source. Discussion in this article about observations will thus be
somewhat limited. Nevertheless, I faced a number of choices in conducting observa-
tions, including type of observation, when to enter, how much observation to con-
duct, and which groups to observe.
The are four ways in which an observer may gather data: (1) the complete par-
ticipant who operates covertly, concealing any intention to observe the setting; (2)
the participant-as-observer, who forms relationships and participates in activities,
but makes no secret of his or her intentions to observe events; (3) the observer-as-
participant, who maintains only superficial contact with the people being studied;
and (4) the complete observer, who merely stands back and eavesdrops on the pro-
ceedings (Waddington 1994).
In this study, I used the second and third ways of observing. The use of the
participant-as-observer mode, on which much ethnographic research is based, was
rather limited in the study. There were two reasons for this. First, I had limited time
available for collecting data, and in my view interviews made more effective use of
this limited time than extensive participant observation. Second, people were rather
reluctant to let me observe these political and sensitive processes until they knew
me better and felt I could be trusted. Indeed, I was dependent on starting the data
collection before having built sufficient trust to observe key groups in the integra-
tion process. Nevertheless, Gjensidige allowed me to study two employee seminars
to acquaint me with the organization. Here I admitted my role as an observer but
participated fully in the activities. To achieve variation, I chose two seminars repre-
senting polar groups of employees.
As observer-as-participant, I attended a top management meeting at the end of
the first data collection in Gjensidige and observed the respondents during inter-
views and in more informal meetings, such as lunches. All these observations gave
me an opportunity to validate the data from the interviews. Observing the top man-
agement group was by far the most interesting and rewarding in terms of input.
Both DnB and Gjensidige started to open up for more extensive observation
when I was about to finish the data collection. By then, I had built up the trust
needed to undertake this approach. Unfortunately, this came a little late for me to
take advantage of it.
DATA ANALYSIS
Published studies generally describe research sites and data-collection methods, but
give little space to discuss the analysis (Eisenhardt 1989). Thus, one cannot follow
how a researcher arrives at the final conclusions from a large volume of field notes
(Miles and Huberman 1994).
In this study, I went through the stages by which the data were reduced and ana-
lyzed. This involved establishing the chronology, coding, writing up the data
according to phases and themes, introducing organizational integration into the
analysis, comparing the cases, and applying the theory. I will discuss these phases
accordingly.
The first step in the analysis was to establish the chronology of the cases. To do
this, I used internal and external documents. I wrote the chronologies up and
included appendices in the final report.
The next step was to code the data into phases and themes reflecting the contex-
tual factors and features of integration. For the interviews, this implied marking the
text with a specific phase and a theme, and grouping the paragraphs on the same
theme and phase together. I followed the same procedure in organizing the
documents.
I then wrote up the cases using phases and themes to structure them. Before start-
ing to write up the cases, I scanned the information on each theme, built up the facts
and filled in with perceptions and reactions that were illustrative and representative
of the data.
The documents were primarily useful in establishing the facts, but they also pro-
vided me with some perceptions and reactions that were validated in the interviews.
The documents used included internal letters and newsletters as well as articles
from the press. The interviews were less factual, as intended, and gave me input to
assess perceptions and reactions. The limited observation was useful to validate the
data from the interviews. The result of this step was two descriptive cases.
To make each case more analytical, I introduced the three dimensions of organiza-
tional integration—integration of tasks, unification of power, and cultural integration—
into the analysis. This helped to focus the case and to develop a framework that could be
used to compare the cases. The cases were thus structured according to phases, organi-
zational integration, and themes reflecting the factors and features in the study.
I took all these steps to become more familiar with each case as an individual
entity. According to Eisenhardt (1989:540), this is a process that “allows the unique
patterns of each case to emerge before the investigators push to generalise patterns
across cases. In addition it gives investigators a rich familiarity with each case
which, in turn, accelerates cross-case comparison.”
The comparison between the cases constituted the next step in the analysis. Here,
I used the categories from the case chapters, filled in the features and factors, and
compared and contrasted the findings. The idea behind cross-case searching tactics
is to force investigators to go beyond initial impressions, especially through the use
of structural and diverse lenses on the data. These tactics improve the likelihood of
accurate and reliable theory, that is, theory with a close fit to the data (Eisenhardt 1989).
As a result, I had a number of overall themes, concepts, and relationships that
had emerged from the within-case analysis and cross-case comparisons. The next
step was to compare these emergent findings with theory from the organizational
field of mergers and acquisitions, as well as other relevant perspectives.
This method of generalization is known as analytical generalization. In this
approach, a previously developed theory is used as a template with which to com-
pare the empirical results of the case study (Yin 1989). This comparison of emer-
gent concepts, theory, or hypotheses with the extant literature involves asking what
it is similar to, what it contradicts, and why. The key to this process is to consider a
broad range of theory (Eisenhardt 1989). On the whole, linking emergent theory to
existent literature enhances the internal validity, generalizability, and theoretical
level of theory-building from case research.
According to Eisenhardt (1989), examining literature that conflicts with the
emergent literature is important for two reasons. First, the chance of neglecting
conflicting findings is reduced. Second, “conflicting results forces researchers into
a more creative, frame-breaking mode of thinking than they might otherwise be able
to achieve” (p. 544). Similarly, Eisenhardt (1989) claims that literature discussing
similar findings is important because it ties together underlying similarities in phe-
nomena not normally associated with each other. The result is often a theory with a
stronger internal validity, wider generalizability, and a higher conceptual level.
The analytical generalization in the study included exploring and developing the
concepts and examining the relationships between the constructs. In carrying out this
analytical generalization, I acted on Eisenhardt’s (1989) recommendation to use a
broad range of theory. First, I compared and contrasted the findings with the organiza-
tional stream on mergers and acquisition literature. Then I discussed other relevant
literatures, including strategic change, power and politics, social justice, and social
identity theory to explore how these perspectives could contribute to the understand-
ing of the findings. Finally, I discussed the findings that could not be explained either
by the merger and acquisition literature or the four theoretical perspectives.
In every scientific study, questions are raised about whether the study is valid and
reliable. The issues of validity and reliability in case studies are just as important as
for more deductive designs, but the application is fundamentally different.
VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY
The problems of validity in qualitative studies are related to the fact that most quali-
tative researchers work alone in the field, they focus on the findings rather than
describe how the results were reached, and they are limited in processing informa-
tion (Miles and Huberman 1994).
Researchers writing about qualitative methods have questioned whether the
same criteria can be used for qualitative and quantitative studies (Kirk & Miller
1986; Sykes 1990; Maxwell 1992). The problem with the validity criteria suggested
in qualitative research is that there is little consistency across the articles as each
author suggests a new set of criteria.
One approach in examining validity and reliability is to apply the criteria used in
quantitative research. Hence, the criteria to be examined here are objectivity/inter-
subjectivity, construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability.
Objectivity/Intersubjectivity
The basic issue of objectivity can be framed as one of relative neutrality and
reasonable freedom from unacknowledged research biases (Miles & Huberman
1994). In a real-time longitudinal study, the researcher is in danger of losing objec-
tivity and of becoming too involved with the organization, the people, and the pro-
cess. Hence, Leonard-Barton (1990) claims that one may be perceived as, and may
even become, an advocate rather than an observer.
According to King (1994), however, qualitative research, in seeking to describe
and make sense of the world, does not require researchers to strive for objectivity
and distance themselves from research participants. Indeed, to do so would make
good qualitative research impossible, as the interviewer’s sensitivity to subjective
aspects of his or her relationship with the interviewee is an essential part of the
research process (King 1994:31).
This does not imply, however, that the issue of possible research bias can be ignored.
It is just as important as in a structured quantitative interview that the findings are not
simply the product of the researcher’s prejudices and prior experience. One way to
guard against this bias is for the researcher to explicitly recognize his or her
presuppositions and to make a conscious effort to set these aside in the analysis
(Gummesson 1988). Furthermore, rival conclusions should be considered (Miles &
Huberman 1994).
My experience from the first phase of the DnB study was that it was difficult to
focus the questions and the analysis of the data when the research questions were too
vague and broad. As such, developing a framework before collecting the data for the
study was useful in guiding the collection and analysis of data. Nevertheless, it was
important to be open-minded and receptive to new and surprising data. In the DnB
study, for example, the positive effect of the reorganization process on the integration
of cultures came as a complete surprise to me and thus needed further elaboration.
I also consciously searched for negative evidence and problems by interviewing
outliers (Miles & Huberman 1994) and asking problem-oriented questions. In
Gjensidige, the first interviews with the top management revealed a much more posi-
tive perception of the cultural integration process than I had expected. To explore
whether this was a result of overreliance on elite informants, I continued posing prob-
lem-oriented questions to outliers and people at lower levels in the organization.
Moreover, I told them about the DnB study to be explicit about my presuppositions.
Another important issue when assessing objectivity is whether other researchers
can trace the interpretations made in the case studies, or what is called intersubjec-
tivity. To deal with this issue, Miles & Huberman (1994) suggest that: (1) the study’s
general methods and procedures should be described in detail, (2) one should be
able to follow the process of analysis, (3) conclusions should be explicitly linked
with exhibits of displayed data, and (4) the data from the study should be made
available for reanalysis by others.
In response to these requirements, I described the study’s data collection proce-
dures and processing in detail. Then, the primary data were displayed in the written
report in the form of quotations and extracts from documents to support and illus-
trate the interpretations of the data. Because the study was written up in English, I
included the Norwegian text in a separate appendix. Finally, all the primary data
from the study were accessible for a small group of distinguished researchers.
Construct Validity
Construct validity refers to whether there is substantial evidence that the theo-
retical paradigm correctly corresponds to observation (Kirk & Miller 1986). In this
form of validity, the issue is the legitimacy of the application of a given concept or
theory to established facts.
The strength of qualitative research lies in the flexible and responsive interaction
between the interviewer and the respondents (Sykes 1990). Thus, meaning can be
probed, topics covered easily from a number of angles, and questions made clear for
respondents. This is an advantage for exploring the concepts (construct or theoreti-
cal validity) and the relationships between them (internal validity). Similarly, Hakim
(1987) says the great strength of qualitative research is the validity of data obtained
because individuals are interviewed in sufficient detail for the results to be taken as
true, correct, and believable reports of their views and experiences.
Construct validity can be strengthened by applying a longitudinal multicase

approach, triangulation, and use of feedback loops. The advantage of applying a
longitudinal approach is that one gets the opportunity to test sensitivity of construct
measures to the passage of time. Leonard-Barton (1990), for example, found that
one of her main constructs, communicability, varied across time and relative to dif-
ferent groups of users. Thus, the longitudinal study aided in defining the construct
more precisely. By using more than one case study, one can validate stability of
construct across situations (Leonard-Barton 1990). Since my study only consists of
two case studies, the opportunity to test stability of constructs across cases is some-
what limited. However, the use of more than one unit of analysis helps to overcome
this limitation.
Construct validity is strengthened by the use of multiple sources of evidence to
build construct measures, which define the construct and distinguish it from other
constructs. These multiple sources of evidence can include multiple viewpoints
within and across the data sources. My study responds to these requirements in its
sampling of interviewees and uses of multiple data sources.
Use of feedback loops implies returning to interviewees with interpretations and
developing theory and actively seeking contradictions in data (Crabtree & Miller
1992; King 1994). In DnB, the written report had to be approved by the bank’s top
management after the first data collection. Apart from one minor correction, the
bank had no objections to the established facts. In their comments on my analysis,
some of the top managers expressed the view that the political process had been
overemphasized, and that the CEO’s role in initiating a strategic process was under-
valued. Hence, an important objective in the second data collection was to explore
these comments further. Moreover, the report was not as positive as the management
had hoped for, and negotiations had to be conducted to publish the report. The result
of these negotiations was that publication of the report was postponed one-and-a-
half years.
The experiences from the first data collection in the DnB had some consequences.
I was more cautious and brought up the problems of confidentiality and the need to
publish at the outset of the Gjensidige study. Also, I had to struggle to get access to
the DnB case for the second data collection and some of the information I asked for
was not released. At Gjensidige, I sent a preliminary draft of the case chapter to the
corporation’s top management for comments, in addition to having second inter-
views with a small number of people. Beside testing out the factual description,
these sessions gave me the opportunity to test out the theoretical categories estab-
lished as a result of the within-case analysis.
Internal Validity
Internal validity concerns the validity of the postulated relationships among the
concepts. The main problem of internal validity as a criterion in qualitative research
is that it is often not open to scrutiny. According to Sykes (1990), the researcher can
always provide a plausible account and, with careful editing, may ensure its coher-
ence. Recognition of this problem has led to calls for better documentation of the
processes of data collection, the data itself, and the interpretative contribution of the
researcher. The discussion of how I met these requirements was outlined in the sec-
tion on objectivity/subjectivity above.
However, there are some advantages in using qualitative methods, too. First, the
flexible and responsive methods of data collection allow cross-checking and ampli-
fication of information from individual units as it is generated. Respondents’ opin-
ions and understandings can be thoroughly explored. The internal validity results
from strategies that eliminate ambiguity and contradiction, filling in detail and
establishing strong connections in data.
Second, the longitudinal study enables one to track cause and effect. Moreover,
it can make one aware of intervening variables (Leonard-Barton 1990). Eisenhardt
(1989:542) states, “Just as hypothesis testing research an apparent relationship may
simply be a spurious correlation or may reflect the impact of some third variable on
each of the other two. Therefore, it is important to discover the underlying reasons
for why the relationship exists.”
Generalizability
According to Mitchell (1983), case studies are not based on statistical inference.
Quite the contrary, the inferring process turns exclusively on the theoretically neces-
sary links among the features in the case study. The validity of the extrapolation
depends not on the typicality or representativeness of the case but on the cogency of
the theoretical reasoning. Hartley (1994:225) claims, “The detailed knowledge of
the organization and especially the knowledge about the processes underlying the
behaviour and its context can help to specify the conditions under which behaviour
can be expected to occur. In other words, the generalisation is about theoretical
propositions not about populations.”
Generalizability is normally based on the assumption that this theory may be
useful in making sense of similar persons or situations (Maxwell 1992). One way to
increase the generalizability is to apply a multicase approach (Leonard-Barton
1990). The advantage of this approach is that one can replicate the findings from
one case study to another. This replication logic is similar to that used on multiple
experiments (Yin 1993).
Given the choice of two case studies, the generalizability criterion is not sup-
ported in this study. Through the discussion of my choices, I have tried to show that
I had to strike a balance between the need for depth and mapping changes over time
and the number of cases. In doing so, I deliberately chose to provide a deeper and
richer look at each case, allowing the reader to make judgments about the applica-
bility rather than making a case for generalizability.
Reliability
Reliability focuses on whether the process of the study is consistent and reason-
ably stable over time and across researchers and methods (Miles & Huberman
1994). In the context of qualitative research, reliability is concerned with two ques-
tions (Sykes 1990): Could the same study carried out by two researchers produce
the same findings? and Could a study be repeated using the same researcher and
respondents to yield the same findings?
The problem of reliability in qualitative research is that differences between rep-

licated studies using different researchers are to be expected. However, while it may
not be surprising that different researchers generate different findings and reach
different conclusions, controlling for reliability may still be relevant. Kirk and
Miller’s (1986:311) definition takes into account the particular relationship between
the researcher’s orientation, the generation of data, and its interpretation:
For reliability to be calculated, it is incumbent on the scientific investigator to document his
or her procedure. This must be accomplished at such a level of abstraction that the loci of
decisions internal to the project are made apparent. The curious public deserves to know
how the qualitative researcher prepares him or herself for the endeavour, and how the data
is collected and analysed.
The study addresses these requirements by discussing my point of departure

regarding experience and framework, the sampling and data collection procedures,
and data analysis.
DISCUSSION
Case studies often lack academic rigor and are, as such, regarded as inferior to more
rigorous methods where there are more specific guidelines for collecting and ana-
lyzing data. These criticisms stress that there is a need to be very explicit about the
choices one makes and the need to justify them.
One reason why case studies are criticized may be that researchers disagree
about the definition and the purpose of carrying out case studies. Case studies have
been regarded as a design (Cook and Campbell 1979), as a qualitative methodology
(Cassell and Symon 1994), as a particular data collection procedure (Andersen
1997), and as a research strategy (Yin 1989). Furthermore, the purpose for carrying
out case studies is unclear. Some regard case studies as supplements to more rigor-
ous qualitative studies to be carried out in the early stage of the research process;
others claim that it can be used for multiple purposes and as a research strategy in
its own right (Gummesson 1988; Yin 1989). Given this unclear status, researchers
need to be very clear about their interpretation of the case study and the purpose of
carrying out the study.
This article has taken Yin’s (1989) definition of the case study as a research strat-
egy as a starting point and argued that the choice of the case study should be guided
by the research question(s). In the illustrative study, I used a case study strategy
because of a need to explore sensitive, ill-defined concepts in depth, over time, tak-
ing into account the context and history of the mergers and the existing knowledge
about the phenomenon. However, the choice of a case study strategy extended rather
than limited the number of decisions to be made. In Schramm’s (1971, cited in Yin
1989:22–23) words, “The essence of a case study, the central tendency among all
types of case study, is that it tries to illuminate a decision or set of decisions, why
they were taken, how they were implemented, and with what result.”
Table 4 Choices and Steps in Case Study Design

1. Selection of cases Single or multiple
sampling
Unit of analysis
2. Sampling time Number of data
collections
When to enter
3. Selection of data collection Interviews Sampling interviewees
procedures
Structured versus
unstructured
Use of tape recorder
Documents Sampling documents
Use of documents
Use of documents Choosing method
When to enter
How much
Which groups
Hence, the purpose of this article has been to illustrate the wide range of deci-
sions that need to be made in the context of a particular case study and to discuss the
methodological considerations linked to these decisions. I argue that there is a par-
ticular need in case studies to be explicit about the methodological choices one
makes and that these choices can be best illustrated through a case study of the case
study strategy.
As in all case studies, however, there are limitations to the generalizability of
using one particular case study for illustrative purposes. As such, the strength of
linking the methodological considerations to a specific context and phenomenon
also becomes a weakness. However, I would argue that the questions raised in this
article are applicable to many case studies, but that the answers are very likely to
vary. The design choices are shown in Table 4. Hence, researchers choosing a lon-
gitudinal, comparative case study need to address the same set of questions with
regard to design, data collection procedures, and analysis, but they are likely to
come up with other conclusions, given their different research questions.
References
Adler, P. A., and P. Adler. 1994. Observational techniques. In Handbook of qualita-

tive research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 377–92. London: Sage.
Andersen, S. S. 1997. Case-studier og generalisering: Forskningsstrategi og design
(Case studies and generalization: Research strategy and design). Bergen,
Norway: Fagbokforlaget.
Blake, R. R., and J. S. Mounton. 1985. How to achieve integration on the human
side of the merger. Organizational Dynamics 13 (3): 41–56.
Bryman, A., and R. G. Burgess. 1999. Qualitative research. London: Sage.
Buono, A. F., and J. L. Bowditch. 1989. The human side of mergers and acquisi-
tions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cartwright, S., and C. L. Cooper. 1993. The psychological impact of mergers and
acquisitions on the individual: A study of building society managers. Human
Relations 46 (3): 327–47.
Cassell, C., and G. Symon, eds. 1994. Qualitative methods in organizational
research: A practical guide. London: Sage.
Cook, T. D., and D. T. Campbell. 1979. Quasi experimentation: Design & analysis
issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Crabtree, B. F., and W. L. Miller. 1992. Primary care research: A multimethod
typology and qualitative road map. In Doing qualitative research: Methods for
primary care, edited by B. F. Crabtree and W. L. Miller, 3–28. Vol. 3. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. 1998. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., and L. S. Lincoln. 2000. Handbook of qualitative research.
London: Sage.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review 14 (4): 532–50.
Flick, U. 1998. An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.
George, A. L. 1979. Case studies and theory development: The method of struc-
tured, focused comparison. In Diplomacy: New approaches in history, theory,
and policy, edited by P. G. Lauren, 43–68. New York: Free Press.
Gioia, D. A., and K. Chittipeddi. 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic
change initiation. Strategic Management Journal 12:433–48.
Glaser, B. G., and A. L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies
for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Glick, W. H, G. P. Huber, C. C. Miller, D. H. Doty, and K. M. Sutcliffe. 1990.
Studying changes in organizational design and effectiveness: Retrospective event
histories and periodic assessments. Organization Science 1 (3): 293–312.
Gummesson, E. 1988. Qualitative methods in management research. Lund, Norway:
Studentlitteratur, Chartwell-Bratt.
Hakim, C. 1987. Research design. Strategies and choices in the design of social
research. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Hamel, J., S. Dufour, and D. Fortin. 1993. Case study methods. London: Sage.
Hartley, J. F. 1994. Case studies in organizational research. In Qualitative methods
in organizational research: A practical guide, edited by C. Cassell and G. Symon,
209–29. London: Sage.
Haspeslaph, P., and D. B. Jemison. 1991. The challenge of renewal through acquisi-
tions. Planning Review 19 (2): 27–32.
King, N. 1994. The qualitative research interview. In Qualitative methods in organi-

zational research: A practical guide, edited by C. Cassell and G. Symon, 14–36.
London: Sage.
Kirk, J., and M. L. Miller. 1986. Reliability and validity in qualitative research.
Qualitative Research Methods Series 1. London: Sage.
Leonard-Barton, D. 1990.Adual methodology for case studies: Synergistic use of a
longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites. Organization Science 1
(3): 248–66.
Marshall, C., and G. B. Rossman. 1999. Designing qualitative research.
London: Sage.
Maxwell, J. A. 1992. Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard
Educational Review 62 (3): 279–99.
Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis. 2d ed.
London: Sage.
Mitchell, J. C. 1983. Case and situation analysis. Sociology Review 51 (2): 187–211.
Nachmias, C., and D. Nachmias. 1981. Research methods in the social sciences.
London: Edward Arnhold.
Pettigrew, A. M. 1990. Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice.
Organization Science 1 (3): 267–92.
___. (1992). The character and significance of strategic process research. Strategic
Management Journal 13:5–16.
Rossman, G. B., and S. F. Rallis. 1998. Learning in the field: An introduction to
qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schramm, W. 1971. Notes on case studies for instructional media projects. Working
paper for Academy of Educational Development, Washington DC.
Schweiger, D. M., and J. P. Walsh. 1990. Mergers and acquisitions: An interdisci-
plinary view. In Research in personnel and human resource management, edited
by G. R. Ferris and K. M. Rowland, 41–107. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Silverman, D. 2000. Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage.
Stake, R. E. 1995. The art of case study research. London: Sage.
Strauss, A. L., and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sykes, W. 1990. Validity and reliability in qualitative market research: A review of
the literature. Journal of the Market Research Society 32 (3): 289–328.
Waddington, D. 1994. Participant observation. In Qualitative methods in organiza-
tional research, edited by C. Cassell and G. Symon, 107–22. London: Sage.
Yin, R. K. 1989. Case study research: Design and methods. Applied Social Research
Series, Vol. 5. London: Sage.
___. 1993. Applications of case study research. Applied Social Research Series,
Vol. 34. London: Sage.
Christine Benedichte Meyer is an associate professor in the Department of
Strategy and Management in the Norwegian School of Economics and Business
Administration, Bergen-Sandviken, Norway. Her research interests are mergers and
acquisitions, strategic change, and qualitative research. Recent publications include:
“Allocation Processes in Mergers and Acquisitions: An Organisational Justice

Perspective” (British Journal of Management 2001) and “Motives for Acquisitions
in the Norwegian Financial Industry” (CEMS Business Review 1997).
References
Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2017). Rethinking case study research. Routledge.
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Polity Press.
Bhaskar, R., & Danermark, B. (2006). Metatheory, interdisciplinarity and disability research: A
critical realist perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 8(4), 278–297.
Bulmer, M. (1986). The Chicago School of sociology: Institutionalization, diversity, and the rise of
sociological research. University of Chicago Press.
Campbell, D. T. (1975). Degrees of freedom and the case study. Comparative Political Studies,
8(1), 178–191.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for
research. Houghton Mifflin.
Chua, W. F. (1986). Radical developments in accounting thought. The Accounting Review, 61(4),
601–632.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(4th ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Sage.
Davey, L. (1991). The application of case study evaluations. Practical Assessment, Research, &
Evaluation 2(9). Retrieved May 28, 2018, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=2&n=9
Demetriou, H. (2017). The case study. In E. Wilson (Ed.), School-based research: A guide for
education students (pp. 124–138). Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. In C. Seale, G. Gobo,
J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 420–433). Sage.
Hamel, J., Dufour, S., & Fortin, D. (1993). Case study methods. Sage.
Healy, M. E. (1947). Le Play’s contribution to sociology: His method. The American Catholic
Sociological Review, 8(2), 97–110.
Johansson, R. (2003). Case study methodology. [Keynote speech]. In International Conference
“Methodologies in Housing Research.” Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, September
2003 (pp. 1–14).
Klonoski, R. (2013). The case for case studies: Deriving theory from evidence. Journal of Business
Case Studies, 9(31), 261–266.
McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research methods for English language teachers.
Routledge.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B. (1979). Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: The problem of analysis.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 590–601.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd ed.). Sage.
Mills, A. J., Durepos, G. & E. Wiebe (Eds.) (2010). What is a case study? Encyclopedia of case
study research, Volumes I and II. Sage.
National Film Board of Canada. (2012, April). Here at home: In search of the real cost of home-
lessness. [Web documentary]. Retrieved February 9, 2020, from http://athome.nfb.ca/#/
athome/home
Popper, K. (2002). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge.
References 285
Ridder, H.-G. (2017). The theory contribution of case study research designs. Business Research,
10(2), 281–305.
Rolls, G. (2005). Classic case studies in psychology. Hodder Education.
Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case-Selection techniques in case study research: A menu of
qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61, 294–308.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press.
Swanborn, P. G. (2010). Case study research: What, why and how? Sage.
Thomas, W. I., & Znaniecki, F. (1996). The Polish peasant in Europe and America: A classic work
in immigration history. University of Illinois Press.
Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly,
26(1), 58–65.
Yin, R. K. (1991). Advancing rigorous methodologies: A Review of “Towards Rigor in Reviews of
Multivocal Literatures….”. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 299–305.
Yin, R. K. (1999). Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health Services
Research, 34 (5) Part II, 1209–1224.
Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of case study research (3rd ed.). Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.
Zaretsky, E. (1996). Introduction. In W. I. Thomas & F. Znaniecki (Eds.), The Polish peasant
in Europe and America: A classic work in immigration history (pp. vii–xvii). University of
Illinois Press.

Case Study Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Study Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 7

Case Study Research

The experiential account that we get from a case study or

Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 233

various discussions of numerous methodologies, we encourage the reader to engage

The Biographical Context

volume of work, considered to be a classic in the realm of sociology, is generally

In many senses, this volume, so important to modern audiences, remains a clas-

Robert K. Yin (1941–), an American social scientist and president of COSMOS

The Historical Context

Professor Emeritus Robert Stake

Video Clip 7.1: Professor Emeritus Robert Stake

Video Clip 7.2: Professor Emeritus Robert Stake

In response to the question of generalizability, a major question frequently occurs

The Teachings of Robert Stake

who may arrange the story in chronological or non-chronological order. By com-

The Political Context

Types of Case Studies

The Instrumental Case

The Collective or Multiple Case

The Intrinsic Case

The Political Role of Case Study Research

An interesting example of case study research, intentionally tied to social policy

bounded system, often represented by a setting or context. Although Stake (2005)

Video Clip 7.3: Professor Emeritus Robert Stake

In this video-clip, Professor Stake addresses the difficulty of popularizing the

The Postmodern Context

case study’s issues may be nationally important, either in theoretical, political or

Variations Within Case Studies

The Philosophical Context

institutionalized practice so that external investigators can review the evidence

Data collection is typically intensive and draws on multiple sources of informa-

Challenges to and Benefits of Case Study Research

Feature Article: A Case in Case Study Methodology

Summary: Case Study as Methodology and Method

A Case in Case Study Methodology

Christine Benedichte Meyer

WHY A CASE STUDY?

specific knowledge of institutional conditions and social patterns. According to

DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATIVE STUDY

Table 1 Periods of Time for Studying the Two Combinations

Sampling Business Areas, Divisions, and Sites

SELECTION OF DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES

Table 2 Distribution of Interviewees

Third, I focused on key informants who were expected to be knowledgeable

Table 3 Documents Used in Analysis of the Combinations

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

Construct validity can be strengthened by applying a longitudinal multicase

The problem of reliability in qualitative research is that differences between rep-

The study addresses these requirements by discussing my point of departure

Table 4 Choices and Steps in Case Study Design

Adler, P. A., and P. Adler. 1994. Observational techniques. In Handbook of qualita-

King, N. 1994. The qualitative research interview. In Qualitative methods in organi-

“Allocation Processes in Mergers and Acquisitions: An Organisational Justice

You might also like