See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228472520

An Overview of Case Study

Article  in  SSRN Electronic Journal · September 2012

DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2141476

CITATIONS READS
32 29,228

1 author:

K. Harling
Wilfrid Laurier University
30 PUBLICATIONS   220 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

effective protection of the poultry industry View project

All content following this page was uploaded by K. Harling on 14 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 An Overview of Case Study1

Dr. Kenneth Harling

Wilfrid Laurier University
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

The use of case studies is of growing interest to agricultural economists. They are aware
of case studies because their colleagues teaching agribusiness management have been
using them for many years but they are primarily interested in them as a fresh research
methodology that might let them explore problems which they have not been able to
address very well with their traditional methodologies. Moving beyond awareness of the
case method to using the case method requires a deeper understanding of it.

My purpose here is to help develop such an understanding of the case method. I do so by

dealing with four topics that I think are fundamental to appreciating it. I start by
examining the nature of case study. I provide a clearer sense of what is meant by a case
study and hence what work is required to produce one. Second I consider the role of
theory in case study. Some see the case study as an approach used when developing
theory while others see it as an approach for examining the place of theory. Third I
describe the difference between research and teaching cases. This is important because
some see the two types as fundamentally different while others see them as similar.
Having done this I present three important features of qualitative methodology. I do so
for those who are unfamiliar with this style of research. It is considerably different from
the quantitative methodology commonly used by agricultural economists and thus easily
dismissed as lacking scholarly merit. On appreciating the differences, one can see that it
has equivalent scholarly merit and opens up new avenues for research and teaching. This
paper concludes with a set of references that you can use to explore the case method and
qualitative research in greater detail.

1. What Case Study is

Different forms of qualitative traditions exist and the design of research within each has
distinct features (Cresswell, 98). Case study is but one qualitative methodology, the
output of which is the case study.

Definition of a Case Study

A case study is a holistic inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its
natural setting. Specifying particular terms in greater detail:

1
This paper supports a similarly titled discussion that Harling conducted at the learning workshop, “Case
Studies: Their Future Role in Agricultural and Resource Economics,” held at the annual meeting of the
American Agricultural Economics Association, Long Beach, California, July 27, 2002. Comments are
appreciated. Please communicate by e-mail: kharling@wlu.ca

1
 • The phenomenon can be many different things: a program, an event, an activity,
a problem or an individual(s).
• The natural setting is the context within which this phenomenon appears.
Context is included because contextual conditions are considered highly pertinent
to the phenomenon being studied either because many factors in the setting
impinge on the phenomenon or because the separation between the phenomenon
and the context is not clearly evident.
• The phenomenon and setting are a bound system; that is, there are limits on what
is considered relevant or workable. The boundaries are set in terms of time,
place, events, and processes.
• Holistic inquiry involves collection of in-depth and detailed data that are rich in
content and involve multiple sources of information including direct observation,
participant observations, interviews, audio-visual material, documents, reports
and physical artifacts. The multiple sources of information provide the wide
array of information needed to provide an in-depth picture.

Different types of cases

Case studies can deal with either single or multiple cases. There are two types of single
case study: the intrinsic and the instrumental. The intrinsic case study is done to learn
about a unique phenomenon which the study focuses on. The researcher needs to be able
to define the uniqueness of this phenomenon which distinguishes it from all others;
possibly based on a collection of features or the sequence of events. The instrumental
case study is done to provide a general understanding of a phenomenon using a particular
case. The case chosen can be a typical case although an unusual case may help illustrate
matters overlooked in a typical case because they are subtler there. Thus a good
instrumental case does not depend on the researcher being able to defend its typicality
though the researcher needs to provide a rationale for using a particular case.

The collective case study is done to provide a general understanding using a number of
instrumental case studies that either occur on the same site or come from multiple sites.
Yin (1999) has described these as analytical generalizations as opposed to statistical
generalizations. When multiple cases are used, a typical format is to provide detailed
description of each case and then present the themes within the case (within case
analysis) followed by thematic analysis across cases (cross-case analysis). In the final
interpretative phase, the researcher reports the lessons learned from the analysis. When
using multiple cases, the question of how many arises. Too few and generalization is
impossible; too many and depth of understanding difficult to achieve. Again the
researcher needs to provide a rationale for the cases used.

Whether the study performed is a single case study or a collective case study depends on
the type of case that is most promising and useful for the purpose of the research.

2
 2. The Role of Theory in Case Study

My second topic is the place of theory in case study. There is disagreement in the
literature about this. Stake (1995) says that theory can be absent from studies which
focus on a describing the case and its issues. Yin (1995) says that theory can be used to
guide the case study in an exploratory way. And Creswell (1994) says that theory is
employed toward the end of the study providing a “theory-after” perspective in which
other theories are compared and contrasted with the theory developed in the case study.

My view is that existing theory is the starting point as it gives direction and structure to
the initial set of questions the researcher asks. The researcher then reacts to the data
received during questioning, using theory to filter and organize the data received. This
will confirm existing theory but the researcher always needs to be careful to prevent
existing theory from predetermining the result. This means that the researcher needs to
be sensitive to paradoxes between the case situation and the theory and pursue them when
they occur.

I see the need to draw on existing theory because I do not believe there is a situation
where all of what we already know is irrelevant. This view has also been expressed by
Stake (1995: 7) who stated that case studies seldom produce entirely new understandings
but rather modify grand generalizations which may be further modified with additional
case studies. Moreover, certain activities or problems come up in many cases because of
the great realm of considerations in a complex case.

Existing theory matters even when the purpose of a case is to develop a new theory. If
nothing else, one needs to be aware of the inadequacies of existing theory so that one
knows where one is trying to go. Lacking such knowledge, one could be trying to
reinvent the wheel. The researcher ends up discovering what is new to himself/herself
rather than adding to the existing theory.

3. Research Cases Versus Teaching Cases

A distinction is often made between research and teaching cases. While they are
different, the work done to create them is less different than is generally appreciated. For
me the main difference between them is in what material is presented and how it is
presented.

The research case is intended for professional colleagues, so is more formal, includes the
researcher’s opinions and judgments, and is structured to persuade the reader to accept
the researcher’s conclusions. The researcher may well have only revealed the essence of
the situation after winnowing the information collected down.

The teaching case is intended for readers to have an opportunity for a vicarious
experience for which they have to determine a solution and from which they can possibly
draw personal naturalistic generalizations. The case writer produces this by acting as a

3
reporter, providing relevant description of the situation but withholding opinions and
analysis. The case writer then writes an accompanying teaching note in which analysis,
opinions, conclusions and generalizations are offered. A case teacher can then use the
teaching note to guide students through the process of analyzing the data and drawing
conclusions.

This means that the research case and the teaching case with its accompanying teaching
note are equivalent products in terms of scholarship. It also implies that a research case
can be turned into a teaching case by disaggregating the factual information from the
research results. Essentially, the research case is based on the same work as the teaching
case but in the later case the reporting is split into a teaching case and a teaching note.

I would caution the writer interested in writing teaching cases that doing so is
challenging. It requires drama so the case is interesting to students and completeness so
that all the content is available to support the critical thinking that produces the desired
generalizations.

4. Methodology

The research methodology underlying case study is different from that which agricultural
economists are used to. Much of their work has employed quantitative methodology in
which they study aggregates of population rather than the uniqueness of individuals.
Case study involves qualitative research which focuses on the uniqueness of individual
situations. An appreciation for the differences helps us realize that both have scholarly
merit and overcome tendencies to “methodological imperialism” in which we think there
is only one way to create knowledge.

How Qualitative Research Differs

Stake (35) has differentiated quantitative and qualitative research on three main points.
First, quantitative work seeks to explain while qualitative work seeks to understand.
Second, the personal and impersonal role of the researcher differs in the two research
styles. Third, the quantitative researcher seeks to discover knowledge while qualitative
researchers seeks to construct knowledge.

Explanation versus understanding: The orientation of research is a different between

quantitative research which starts with “why” as it searches for explanations and
qualitative research which starts with “how” or “what” as it searches to promote
understanding.

Quantitative research methods have grown out of scientific search for cause and effect
expressed ultimately in grand theory. Researchers have controlled their search by
working with a few variables, nullifying context and seeing the uniqueness of each case
as “error” which is outside the system of explained science. They use many cases as they

4
seek to discover the most general and pervasive association, or cause and effect
relationships which they hope will be relevant to other cases.

Qualitative research methods have developed to serve the view that phenomena,
particularly when humans are involved, involve complex interactions and are seldom
simply caused. To understand the event, all aspects of the situation need to be considered
and this inclusiveness tends to mean that each situation is unique. The result is that
qualitative researchers consider many variables in a case or a few cases. They probe
deeply into a situation, describing the full range of influences associated with the
phenomenon. They see benefit in understanding a particular phenomenon and hope that
some of the understanding developed will transfer to other phenomena.

The Role of the Researcher: All research depends on interpretation as part of its method
but this differs and this difference is linked to the research question. In quantitative
studies the researcher seeks to develop a relationship among a small number of variables.
This requires that the researcher have considerable expertise and time to develop an
instrument prior to gathering data. The researcher also controls the redundancy of
observation through sampling. The role of personal interpretation is limited between the
time the research design is set and the time the data are collected and analyzed
statistically. The results produced by the researcher tend to be viewed as objective.

In qualitative studies the researcher typically seeks to develop expected as well as

unanticipated patterns among many variables. This requires that the researcher develop
an initial set of questions for collecting data but, once the researcher starts collecting the
data, he/she plays an interpretive role, making observations, exercising subjective
judgment, analyzing and synthesizing, realizing all the while his/her own consciousness.
The results produced reflect the individual researcher as he/she makes more subjective
claims about the meaning of data and may produce multiple realities.

Knowledge discovered versus knowledge created: All research is a search for patterns
and this search is conducted through analysis. The analysis takes different forms in the
two approaches. In quantitative research the analysis looks for repetition of the
phenomenon in multiple cases. A collection of instances is used with the expectation that
the issue-relevant meanings will emerge from the aggregate. In this way knowledge is
discovered in the data. In qualitative research the analysis has the researcher concentrate
on the situation, pulling it apart and putting it back together using analysis and synthesis
in direct interpretation until meaning emerges. In this way knowledge is created from
the data.

The view that knowledge is constructed assumes that reality is only what we have come
to believe. This is a relativist view which implies that knowledge is experimental and
personally determined. It means that every informant has a personal reality but not every
reality is equally important: Various constructions of reality vary in their credibility and
utility. Knowledge is thus what people agree is the best explanation of reality.

5
 The Quality of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research has all the problems its detractors claim. It produces new puzzles
more frequently than it solves old ones. Its contributions to disciplined science are slow
and tedious. The ethical risks in performing it are substantial. The cost of qualitative
research in terms of time and money is very high. And it is subjective. Yet Creswell
(1998; 16) sees qualitative research sharing good company with the most rigorous
quantitative research, and arguing that it should not be viewed as an easy substitute for
quantitative study.

The quality of qualitative work stems from a strong inquiry procedure with well-
established protocols that both the researcher and reader follow. While these standards
ensure that the work is trustworthy, Crabtree and Miller (1999; 335) argue that the
ultimate test of qualitative studies is that the work carries sufficient conviction to enable
someone else to have the same experience as the original observer and to appreciate the
truth of the account. In other words, good methods are important but what really matters
is good thinking.

The Place for Qualitative Research

The world is full of alternative research methodologies. According to Crabtree and

Miller (1999: 346), the best way to judge the merits of a methodology is by how well the
method relates to the problem at hand. Recognizing this allows us to let go of specious
distinctions between research traditions--distinctions that simply encourage conflict and
disagreement.

By being willing to accept alternative methodologies, we can expand the range of

problems we can address because we have more ways of doing so. And by being able to
deal with more problems we can generate new knowledge. Qualitative research is thus of
benefit to use because it allows us to better understand phenomena embedded in
situations through complex relationships.

Conclusions

The paper has shown that there are several approaches to case study with the common
feature that each involves the holistic inquiry into a contemporary phenomenon within
it’s natural setting. Theory plays an important role in case study, being used to guide the
collection and analysis of data and it can be created using the information produced in the
case study. The product of the case study can either be a research or a teaching case.
From our perspective the two are of equal scholarly merit with the distinction between
them being that the research case is self-contained whereas the teaching case is
accompanied by a complementary teaching note.

Full appreciation of the case method comes with recognition that it fits within the
traditions of qualitative research. The qualitative approach to research has features that