PETER

SWANBOR
N
Case Study Research

UJ @ A q D,

wits tim dee Gad E

Hu 00139149
 Digitized by the Internet Archive
In 2022 with funding from
Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/casestudyresearcO000swan
Case Study Research
What, Why and How?
© Peter G. Swanborn 2010

First published 2010

Reprinted 2010

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or

private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, this publication
may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form, or by
any means, only with the prior permission in writing of the
publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction, in
accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright
Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside
those terms should be sent to the publishers.

SAGE Publications Ltd

1 Oliver's Yard
55 City Road
London EC1Y 1SP

SAGE Publications Inc.

2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320

SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd

B 1/1 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044
India

SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd

33 Pekin Street #02-01
Far East Square
Singapore 048763

Library of Congress Control Number: 2009935548

British Library Cataloguing in Publication data

A catalogue record for this book is available from

the British Library

ISBN 978-1-84920-61 1-2

ISBN 978-1-84920-612-9 (pbk)

Typeset by C&M Digitals (P) Ltd, Chennai, India

Printed in the UK by the MPG Books Group
Printed on paper from sustainable resources
©
Mixed Sources
Product group from well-managed
forests and other controlled sources
FSC www.fsc.org Cert no. SA-COC-1565
© 1996 Forest Stewardship Council
 Contents

Preface Viii

] What is a case study?

1.1 Introduction
1.2. Phenomena and cases
1.3. Historical background
1.4 Methodological point of departure
1.5 Definition
1.6 Additional remarks about the definition
1.7. An holistic approach?
1.8 Conclusions
Exercises
Key terms

2 When to conduct a case study?

2.1 Introduction
2.2 Research questions
2.3. Specific conditions
2.4 Further considerations
2.5 Conclusions
Exercises
Key terms

Ss How to select cases?

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Demarcation of the domain
3.3. No selection at all
3.4 Random selection
3.5 . Pragmatic grounds
3.6 Substantive criteria
3.7. The problem of generalisation
3.8 Conclusions
Exercises
Key terms
 What data to collect? rE)
Introduction i:
Data and theories 76
An application of theory TF
Causality 88
Conclusions o5
Exercises 96
Key terms 96

How to enrich your case study data? 97

Introduction: degrees of freedom ae
Increasing the number of measurement points in time oo)
Introducing sub-units 101
Increasing the number of cases 104
Increasing the number of predictions 106
Using several gradations of the independent variables 108
Diversifying methods of collecting data 108
Diversifying researchers 109
Presenting results to participants and using their opinions
as extra data 110
Conclusions 112
Exercises 112
Key terms 112

How to analyse your data? 113

Introduction 1h
Five traditions 114
Analysis 124
Limits of tabulations on qualitative data 130
Conclusions 134
Exercises 135
Key terms 135

Assets and opportunities 136

Styles of reporting 136
Combining intensive and extensive approaches 139
Generalising from the user’s perspective 146
Meta-analysis 148
The efficiency of case studies 150
Epilogue LS}
Key terms bS2

vi Case Study Research: : What Why and How?

Appendix | Selected literature on case studies 133
Appendix 2 The political science debate on case studies hey
Appendix 3 A note on triangulation 160
Appendix 4 A note on contamination 162

Bibliography 163
Author Index 174
Subject Index Lay

Contents vil
 Preface

What is a case study? How should cases be selected? How do case study results
compare to those of a survey? Is case study methodology fundamentally different
from the methodology of more extensive methods? What, in fact, is a case? These
are questions with which many social researchers, certainly those in the fields of
applied research, are confronted.
The ideas in the present book are largely based on experience with case studies in
sociology and educational research. Case study methodology constitutes a difficult and
confusing field because many research traditions use the same expression, ‘case study’!
The majority of publications are restricted to one of those traditions, and a world of
difference exists, for instance, between case studies in traditional anthropology and, say,
Yin’s work, which focuses on changes in organisations.
In this book, case study methodology is posited in a general methodological
framework. This may help researchers from different backgrounds in their under-
standing of case study research. It is not a book of recipes for data collection. For
suggestions in this respect, the reader can use many handbooks, depending on the
kind of research (s)he has in mind. I have tried to keep the text itself as concise as
possible. Links to relevant literature are mentioned in footnotes. Some frequently
cited sources are also commented upon in the footnotes, and a few historical
debates are briefly summarised. The boxes in the chapters serve a double purpose:
sometimes they contain an example; sometimes they contain a not-necessary-but-
useful elaboration of the main text.
This is not a handbook on ‘qualitative methods’. A case study usually contains
qualitative as well as quantitative elements, and many other subjects may be
arranged under the flag of ‘qualitative methods’, such as in-depth interviewing,
qualitative content analysis of texts, films, photographs, videotapes and emails, nar-
rative analysis, conversation analysis, unstructured observation and most
historical methods.
This book may be used in many methodology courses, but it concentrates on the
graduate level. It will also be useful in Master’s courses that put a strong emphasis
on quantitative research, especially those courses where nowadays, unfortunately,
computerised analysis of survey data files seems to be the core content of meth-
odology education. The text is also meant to offer a helping hand for PhD
students and researchers in the field who wish to make a responsible choice
between research strategies.

i :
To get picture, try ‘ ‘Googling’
PLAST Te
with the term , ‘case studies’
; ; i :
or even ‘case studies, social sciences’!
;
 It can be supplemented by e-learning, such as downloaded (summaries of) recent
case studies selected according to the specific discipline of interest, such as education,
health or business. Used in this way, the book offers a ready-to-use set of questions
with which to examine a selected case study. Finally, the book makes the case for
a more extensive use of case studies, and in doing so concurs with developments
in actual social research.
If we sketch out the phases of a social research project in terms of the well-
known sequence of deciding the research question, design, data collection, data
analysis and communicating results in a report, Chapters 2 and 3 and in part also
Chapters 4 and 5, may be categorised under the ‘design’ heading. This already
illustrates that design features are central in this book.
In Chapter 2 we tackle the ‘when to do a case study?’ question. As the answer
to this question is highly dependent on the research question, ample space is
devoted to the topic of phrasing the research question(s). Clarity in this respect is
a necessity for the success of a research project.
In Chapter 3, we address the second important problem — which cases to select.
The choice of these cases has to be justified, of course, in order to validly answer
the research question.
The phase of data collection is discussed in Chapter 4, where the usefulness of
theoretical ideas to guide the selection of concepts and variables is emphasised.
Chapter 5 examines several approaches for enriching the information, that is,
increasing the number of ‘degrees of freedom’, contained in the data. The most
important approaches deal with extending the number of observation points in
time, and working with sub-units within the case.
Chapter 6 is devoted to the analysis of the data, with a view to resolving the
research question(s). Several distinct traditions are discussed. The use of
theories holds a far more central position in this text than in most publications on
this topic.
Finally, in Chapter 7 several remaining topics, such as styles of reporting, the use
of mixed methods and meta-analysis, are discussed.
Methodological distinctions and debates covering a wider field than case studies
alone are summarily explained in some appendices. The book contains a 30-title
annotated bibliography on case studies, where the reader can use the asterisk
symbol (*) as a guideline to key publications.
The present text is based on an earlier version in Dutch, Case study's: wat,
wanneer en hoe. (Amsterdam: Boom Publishers, 1996, 2000, 2003). Based on class-
room experiences with several types of student, it has been thoroughly
re-written since its first publication, and hopefully improved. I owe a lot to Iris
Westall, who was very helpful in translating, and to many PhD students and course
participants.
Peter G. Swanborn
Oosterbeek, The Netherlands, Summer 2009

Preface ix
 See : a al

wer (So rere belotly

RUT ty te Aoeriitin MeBegty
((feerons ly bye S-eaeg
he ia a
OP seny ct) Pedra deal a vlan tomes epi dination wyarnhariantes
apt
somite’ ees; (liu sp pron cagedgh hace emibyee zea Weng whorates wom =<
| a prpnaes” love a
vibips:, ibd Tea, nam, Lamar 16: i =
Jt, ied eolaae, awe Ng nabs
saaahidld co re
CC Oe
ane
“ye lin
~~
a at =u

ness tas nee

Sha cape

he fe —
_T sien a wrlnemenh it Ae meatier _?
Sete dogs phy ih WP, mation ade da can

> ais nibs atsa0 eniqoli

- Pi 4 1 hf Bane
rw

anlahs ith_dine beheld Al. ea beeen eal

; ia vp Ssaguu A anal get aesiew.
8 8 AA a)
ba olit: [wee rhe

eeaeae bs
cael.
eae =
OTS, yadue ® Aacobeavia al ak ditbiisind)
|) cap. 2) “pulis <i eageihter

o%

an
 What is a Case Study?

In this chapter we distinguish between extensive and intensive research in social

science (section 1.1). The object of case studies — a social phenomenon - is dis-
cussed in section 1.2. After surveying some historical.origins of the case study in
section 1.3, section 1.4 examines the research question as a methodological point
of departure. It determines which general type of design is to be used: an exten-
sive design (e.g. a survey] or an intensive one (e.g. a case study). A definition of
the case study is presented in section 1.5, and expanded upon in section 1.6. The
popular point of view that a case study is characterised by an holistic approach
is explained and discussed in section 1.7. In section 1.8 we review the contents
of this chapter and we draw conclusions.

1.1 Introduction

In social research, we describe and explain certain phenomena that relate to

people, groups, organisations, communities, large towns or even countries. Such
phenomena are, for instance: leisure time activities; the treatment of an ADHD
child; the determinants of individual health; the way in which people use their
social network; how people cope with a disaster; riots; strikes; the process of adop-
tion of an organisational innovation in a hospital; the principles according to which
political coalitions are formed; or, an arms race between nation-states. In order to
study social phenomena, we use a diversity of approaches or strategies. They can
roughly be divided into two general types: extensive approaches and intensive
approaches.'
In an extensive approach we collect information about the relevant properties of
a large number of instances of a phenomenon. We draw our conclusions by putting
together all the information and calculating and interpreting correlations between
the properties of these examples. For instance, in a study about the conditions for
and causes of riots (the phenomenon under study) we may start by making an
inventory of, say, 200 riots using documentary sources. We establish the ‘scores’ of

'This pair of concepts is popularised by the British philosopher of science and social scientist Rom
Harré (1979: 132-135).
each riot with respect to a set of properties (such as the number of people
involved, the extent of damage to property, the weather conditions), and study the
correlations between these properties (these are usually called variables) in order
to construct a model of causes and consequences.
In extensive research, we use a large set of events, people, organisations or
nation-states to ground our conclusions about the phenomenon. In sociology, in
the political and educational sciences, as well as in several other disciplines, large-
scale surveying of people is the dominant extensive strategy to collect empirical
data. Hundreds or even thousands of respondents may be involved to study a
phenomenon. This might, for instance, be the causation of (non-)smoking habits
in individuals. Each survey respondent provides information in the form of
answers to a series of standardised questions. These answers are not used to study
the development of the phenomenon within this individual person. They are aggre-
gated over all respondents to create information about frequency distributions and
relationships between the variables under study which might be helpful in under-
standing and explaining the phenomenon.
Alternatively, in applying an intensive approach, a researcher focuses on only
one specific instance of the phenomenon to be studied, or on only a handful
of instances in order to study a phenomenon in depth. We would therefore be
inclined to study some riots, or some young people, or some traffic accidents, or
only a handful of schools by probing into the details of the process (i.e. the phe-
nomenon) we are interested in. Each instance is studied in its own specific con-
text, and in greater detail than in extensive research. Data is collected using many
sources of information, such as spokespeople, documents and behavioural obser-
vations. There are not only many separate variables to measure, but a phenome-
non is also followed over time by repeatedly measuring some of these variables.
This explains the label ‘intensive’. Monitoring helps us to describe and explain
the history, the changes during the period under study and the complex structure
of the phenomenon. Each instance, or example, is usually called a case. Therefore,
an intensive approach is generally called a ‘case study’, or a multiple-case study
if more than one instance of the phenomenon is studied. The word ‘case’ origi-
nates from the Latin ‘casus’ (cadere = to fall); it simply means ‘event’, ‘situation’
or ‘condition’.
Let us take an example, such as the origins of (differences in) civic participa-
tion. An intensive approach often takes the form of a field study within a specific
local setting. As a ‘case’, we might select an election campaign in a small town: a
clear, local, manifestation of political participation (or the lack of it). We may
even restrict ourselves to the membership of one political party in that town. The
researcher monitors the process, by reading all available documentation, inter-
viewing people who were, or are, involved in the case in order to get first-hand
information, and — if possible — by using observation in the field as a technique
to widen understanding of what happens in this case. To lay a hand on the
phenomenon, we focus, within each selected case, on the relationships between

2 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

a number of variables and the ways in which the scores on pairs, or sets, of
variables simultaneously change over time. For instance, during a municipal elec-
tion campaign we monitor the political participation of party members and other
volunteers, and their changing expectations, attitudes, decisions as well as their
influence on each other.
Alternatively, we could select participation in a trade union during a certain
period as our case. Evidently, on the basis of our results, we will not be able to say
much about the ‘political participation of the adult population in this country’ or
about ‘participation in trade unions in general’. However, we can probably formu-
late very interesting conclusions about how differences in participation developed
within this selected case. And this might suggest some tentative ideas about the
phenomenon in general, and at least provide us with suggestions about designing
further research. So, in a case study, the researcher collects information by studying
the characteristics of those people who are/were involved in the same case and their
relationships. Instead of the word ‘people’, one could use the words ‘organisations’,
‘events’, ‘nation-states’ or any other entity. But even in studying entities like these, one
should not overlook that it is people who act and react to each another within the
given case.
In these examples, comparisons between the researched cases — if more than
one election campaign, party, or more than one city, is involved in the study
design — are of secondary importance. In selecting more than one case, the usual
procedure is to design a tentative model based on the results of the first studied
case, and to adjust the resulting model when and where necessary while studying
the other cases, until the designed model fits all cases. Alternatively, we may dis-
cover that different models are necessary to fit different cases, depending on cer-
tain conditions. But the focus is on the description and explanation of developments
within one case.
Evidently, an intensive approach may provide us with tentative ideas about the
social phenomenon, based on knowledge about the studied event or about this
specific person, organisation or country, and ‘how it all came about’. That is to say,
a case study is an appropriate way to answer broad research questions, by provid-
ing us with a thorough understanding of how the process develops in this case.
Whether its results can be generalised in other éontexts remains an open question,
to be answered by complementary ¢aseé studies and/or an extensive approach.
In Box 1.1 we give two examples of an intensive role of case study research
and an extensive approach. Both examples are selected to demonstrate a dual
strategy. Phenomena can often be studied in both ways. However, as we will see in
Chapter 2, for solving some research questions a survey is to be preferred (it might
even be the only way to obtain useful results). For other questions, or under some
special circumstances, a case study is far more appropriate. It goes without saying
that there are several research designs ‘in between’ an extensive and an intensive
approach. Moreover, not all research designs can be easily labelled in this respect,
but the intensive and extensive concepts are at least workable.

What Is a Case Study? 3

 BOX 1.1

Example 1. Let us assume that a sociologist or a policy scientist intends to study

the integration of ethnic minorities within the local municipal services in some
Western European country. An extensive approach would be to conduct a mail
survey among the heads of personnel departments of some 200 municipalities.
In a precoded questionnaire, a set of precisely formulated questions are posed
about the participation of members of ethnic minorities in civil service jobs in the
respondent's municipality. An intensive approach would be to conduct participa-
tory observation and interviews in say three municipalities during a six month
period. The researcher hangs around in three departments, observes patterns of
interethnic social interaction in corridors and restaurants, interviews people at
several places and on different occasions. (S)he studies documents about deci-
sion-making as it takes place in the municipal council and in the mayor and
aldermen’s deliberations, and (s)he interviews as many employees as possible
about the topic in question. Attention is paid, for instance, to the reactions of
departmental heads to decisions from higher levels when these are made against
their advice. Finally a research report is drawn up. Sometimes, a draft of the
research report is discussed with stakeholders in several rounds.

Example 2. We could tackle the problem of the relation between formal edv-
cation of school leavers and the labour market by administering some hard ©
variables to a national cohort of school leavers: what exactly was their formal
education; how long did it take them to find a first job, etc. Alternatively, we
might focus on one specific local group of school leavers, and organise intensive
group interviewing as well as individual interviews. From this, it may become clear
how these boys and girls perceive their own situation; how they evaluate their expe-
riences with potential employers; how they perceive the experiences of their
friends; how they influence each other, and so on.
d
In the social and behavioural sciences the popularity of case studies has a fluc-
tuating character.* Several contemporaneous social science disciplines, such as
sociology, show a rather one-sided emphasis on the extensive, large-scale strategy.
One of the causes of this lack of balance is that an extensive approach easily allows

*Feagin et al. (1991) construct a challenging distinction between modern ‘article sociology’ (as
represented in the American Sociological Review and the American Journal of Sociology) on the one
hand, and ‘book sociology’ on the other hand. In their opinion, the articles, based as they are on
‘the scientific method’ (the variable language), are almost irrelevant and are largely ignored,
whereas book publications — especially those based on case studies — are the focus of public atten-
tion. There is an element of truth in this undoubtedly one-sided view. The fate of sociology and of
some other disciplines is still the lack of consensus with respect to a methodological core, a
consensus that might enable scientists to distinguish between what is acceptable and what is not.

Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

for quantification. Multivariate analysis of data, and statistics, together with the
advance of computers in data analysis, has facilitated an extremely rapid develop-
ment in the field. At the same time, however, modern social science is confronted
with many problems that cannot be solved by an exclusively extensive approach.
That is why, especially in applied research, a sub-stream of intensive studies grows
in importance. In several fields, such as the educational sciences, an intensive
approach is already frequently employed; in others, for example organisational
studies and the nursing studies, it is even dominant. In the last decades of the
twentieth century the combination of a survey (as a strategy ‘in width’) with an
intensive counterpart (the ‘in-depth’ strategy) gradually developed as the standard
approach in applied research projects. It is generally called a mixed-method
approach (see Chapter 7).

To summarise:

Extensive research Intensive research

Example: survey case study
Comparisons made: between units of observation within the unit of
(i.e. between males and observation (i.e. between
females regarding their different stakeholders in
political participation) an organisation)
Global character: ‘in width’ ‘in depth’

1.2 Phenomena and cases

Social science phenomena studied by case researchers are as diverse as:

e individual health histories or labour market careers,

e production processes or innovations in organizations,
e riots, strikes, protest marches,
@ selection procedures,
e initiation rituals, ba
e industrial mergers,
e collective decision-making,
e procedures of quality care,
© attempts to de-bureaucratise a public service sector merger,
e inter-organisational efforts against drug use,
e implementation processes of a governmental policy,
2 alliance formation or war termination between nation-states;
e socialisation processes,
e election campaigns,
e causes of traffic accidents,
e effects of restrictions on the ‘policy space’ of policy-makers.

What Is a Case Study? 5

In a case study on the causes of traffic accidents (involving pedestrians (e.g. pedestrian/
motor vehicle collisions) we may, for instance, select from documentary sources of,
say, ten accidents that occurred within the boundaries of a selected city. Cause
within this specific type of traffic accident constitutes the phenomenon, and
the ten accidents constitute the (ten) cases. Within the study of each accident, the
regulations and specific features of the local situation as well as the characteristics
of the participants involved and the actions of the local police are taken into con-
sideration. In another example — a case study about fatal decisions on battlefields
(the phenomenon) — the study may consist of an intensive analysis of documents
concerning some fatal decision in five great battles (the five cases) in the Second
World War.
Note that in a survey about political attitudes and behaviour, involving several
thousands of people, the respondents are usually not labelled as cases. Not only
because of the numbers involved, which exclude an intensive approach, but prin-
cipally because the individual respondent is not studied primarily as a specific
example of the formation of political attitudes; (s)he acts only as an ‘informer’
about a set of scores on variables that are taken together with those of all the other
respondents in data analysis. Explanations are based on correlations between vari-
ables that are regarded as either causally independent, or as causally dependent.
A phenomenon may involve only one actor, such as in a study about the
trajectory of terminal illness in one individual person. In other examples, such
as in studying the development of friendships in a classroom, a riot or an indus-
trial merger, each case or manifestation of aphenomenon may often involve many
individual as well as collective actors. Hence, a case does not necessarily involve
only one ‘actor’, such as a person, an organization or a local settlement. Depending
on the phenomenon of interest, the actors involved in a case may be located
on the micro-level (persons and interpersonal relations), and/or the meso-
(organisational, institutional) level and/or the macro-level (large communities,
nation-states).

Micro-level, focusing on one actor:

For example, clinical research, such as description, diagnosis and monitoring the
treatment of individual patients; or historical research such as biographies of
famous politicians.

Micro-level, more than one actor involved:

For example, people in a restaurant; some people together in an elevator (the
phenomenon might be how people bring a conversation to an end or the continu-
ous adjustment of physical positions in the elevator).

Meso-level, only one actor:

For example, an organisation, such as a firm or a department; a police station; a
hospital; a voluntary association.

6 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

Meso-level, more than one actor involved:
For example, co-operations or networks, such as between four local primary schools
and a school for special education; conflicts between public service and private
enterprise in the renovation of an inner city; co-operation of industrial firms and
educational institutions with respect to the labour market and learning places.

Macro-level, only one actor:

For example, a local social system such as a street or, a village; a nation-state, a
civilisation.

Macro-level, more than one actor involved:

For example, an arms race; the process of organising a common European foreign
policy.

A combination of micro- and meso-level actors:

For example, socialising newcomers into an organisation.

By far the most popular branch of case studies relates to organisations. Substantial
fields where case studies are used include marketing, human resources manage-
ment, management information systems and strategy.
However, on the micro-level as well as on the macro-level, there is an important
research tradition that has its own specific character, even though it uses the label
‘case study’. This begs for some elaboration.
On the micro-level, the label ‘case study’ is often applied to the tradition of
single-subject research® (in earlier days called ‘N=1 research’), well-known in
cognitive and developmental psychology, in counselling and psychotherapy, and in

*Single-subject research has a long tradition. Over the period 1939-63, Dukes (1965) already
counted 246 N=1 publications in American psychological periodicals. We mention some references
for information. Barlow and Hersen (1984) is a useful textbook for design and analysis of single-
subject research. It contains an historical overview, and discusses in a reasonably systematic way,
starting from the A-B design (A = ‘baseline’, B = treatment), several of the more complex time
series designs. Comparable is Kratochwill (1978). The first part of the book offers a complete intro-
duction to single-subject research. It is compatible with Cook and Campbell’s (1979) book on
quasi-experimental designs. As a consequence, both books can be studied very well together. Some
of the other chapters have a statistical-technical character and are aimed at the clarification of spe-
cific problems. Kratochwill and Levin (1992) contains an overview of historical developments since
1978, and is state of the art. This publication offers many interesting bibliographical suggestions. It
limits itself to methods of analysis, including meta-analysis, for case study researchers. Another
source is Bromley (1986), in which — exclusively in its qualitative interpretation — single-subject
research is discussed, with the help of some clinical cases, The author applies Toulmin's argumenta-
tion-analysis (1958) on his case reports. In this logic, arguments are weighed. The trust of the speaker
or writer in the argument, and the explication of assumptions are of central importance. A view on
actual developments is offered in the e-journal Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy (2007, 3
(4)), with contributions by Clement, Kazdin and Barlow.

What Is a Case Study? 7

health studies. In this approach, an individual is monitored during a certain period.
In health studies, the researcher focuses on a few variables only, for instance the
introduction and dosage of medication, and the patient's status on a handful of
health indicators. If the number of moments of measurement is large (above 50),
this kind of research constitutes a tradition of its own. Quantitative analysis is pos-
sible, and may be highly sophisticated. This mostly refers to monitoring the develop-
ment of the client after the introduction of a treatment, and assessing the effects. In
psychotherapy, many characteristics of the client are usually monitored and carefully
documented.
Although this type of research (only one or just a few ‘case(s)’, and multi-
moment research) is in some respects related to the intensive approach, it also
shares common ground with the scientific tradition of experiments. It belongs to
the broad category of evaluation research, which nowadays is undoubtedly the
most popular branch of applied research. In evaluation research, both extensive
and intensive approaches are used. Nonetheless, in the fields of psychology, psy-
chotherapy and medicine, the label ‘case study’ is generally used for this kind of
research. In this book, this micro-level tradition is not where our main interest lies.
Rather, for readers wishing to pursue this tradition, see Fishman (1999).
On a macro-level, the dominant tradition is represented by those case studies in
political science and the economy, in which certain phenomena (i.e. peasant revo-
lutions, wars) are connected to a restrictive set of causative ‘hard’ variables, such
as population size, climate, economic development or armament level. An exem-
plary study might be about the impact of electoral systems on the number of
parties in a country. Data is obtained from documentary sources. The political sci-
ences and economics traditions stand apart from the case study tradition in sociology,
the administrative and management sciences, health and social care sciences, and
most other disciplines. Although this tradition is largely beyond the focus of this
book, we pay attention to the methodology of the ‘case-comparative methods’ in
the political sciences in section 4.4. The central topic — how to ground causal
conclusions on data from a restricted set of cases — certainly is of general impor-
tance. We will present examples, and discuss aspects of this strand of research.
Appendix 2 presents a (very short) description of the history of the debate.
Both the clinical approach and the political sciences approach are focused on
the study of causal relations — does the therapy work? What were the causes of
this revolution? But we have a wider interest. It is not only causal relations we are
interested in, but we focus on case studies aimed at detailed description, at uncov-
ering a phenomenon that is situated in the context of this special case. Our
emphasis is on an exploratory approach.
One should keep in mind that the researcher is interested in the general phenom-
enon, and not in the more or less accidental case, or ‘instance’, in which the phenom-
enon manifests itself This is not self-evident because already some definitions of the
case study may put you on the wrong foot, for example: ‘a case study is an intensive
study of a single case (or a small set of cases) with an aim to generalise across a larger

8 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

set of cases of the same general type’ (Gerring 2007: 65).4 A more appropriate
expression would be that a case study is the study of a phenomenon or a process as
it develops within one case. The point needs to be emphasised, particularly where
only one actor (person, organisation or local setting) is involved. In intensively
studying the medical history of a person, or the development of some public serv-
ice, sometimes the researcher's attention gradually shifts towards this specific,
selected person, organisation or nation-state, while the phenomenon in general
more or less remains backstage. If we asked what constitutes ‘the case’ in a case
study on hysteria, researcher A would perhaps answer: ‘hysteria in person P’, while
researcher B would reply: ‘person P’ (person P happens to be hysteric). The danger
implied in the second point of view is that one focuses on irrelevant features of the
actor, ‘the bearer of the phenomenon’, and that one overlooks the original intention
to study the case for its representativeness of the phenomenon in general.
We do not argue that, in so far as applied science is concerned, the psychologist,
psychotherapist or doctor does not have the health of the individual patient or
client as a focus of interest. Of course the patient or client is ‘central’. But in so far
as the goal of the project is to use the research results of cases for comparative
purposes, the phenomenon (e.g. the treatment of ADHD) is central.
Confusion between the phenomenon and the studied social unit(s), however, is to
be expected in view of the fact that, mostly, the boundaries of the phenomenon to be
studied are not yet clearly defined. In other words, often it is not yet clear which fea-
tures are relevant to a general model and which properties are irrelevant. This explains
a report writer's reluctance to leave out local and often colourful details, and the
sometimes over-abundance of irrelevant aspects. It may put some report’s readers —
and sometimes the researcher him/herself — on the wrong foot: to erroneously regard
the selected case, instead of the phenomenon to be studied, as paramount.

BOX 2

Yin (1994: 16) presents Bernstein and Woodward's All the President’s Men
(1974) on the Watergate scandal as a fine example of a journalistic case study,
in which the-case is defined as ‘the cover-up’. As often happens, however, it is
unclear whether the Watergate scandal ’can be used as an empirical case from
which to generalise about the domain of (Presidential) scandals, or to some other
broader phenomenon. Anyway, one would prefer to have ‘cover-ups’ defined as
the central phenomenon, and ‘Watergate’ as ‘the case’, that is to say if the
Watergate book is considered to be a contribution to scientific knowledge.

‘Additionally, we do not see ‘the intention to generalise’ as a definitional property of the case
study. In Chapter 2, the difference between the study of ‘stand-alone cases’and ‘pars pro toto cases’
is elaborated.

What Is a Case Study? 9

 There is another implication. At the start of a case study we should know which
phenomenon to study. If we start, however, at the wrong side, by selecting an
individual person, organisation or setting, and only afterwards start thinking
about which phenomenon to study, complications are certainly to be expected. A
researcher who starts studying ‘something’ in a selected place, but doesn’t know
‘of which phenomenon this place is a case’, is comparable to the secondary school
pupil who starts writing a paper without having an idea about the topic, but after-
wards deciding that it has to be about his/her own school.

BOK LS

The researcher's choice of the phenomenon, a specific topic, is the primary

choice that should be expressed in the research question. Somebody. who is
going to study a computer factory where a new ‘generation’ is being developed
is still rather vague. What is the phenomenon to be studied? Procedures in R&D
departments? Problems connected with outsourcing? Conflicts between engineers
and marketing people? Communication processes in general? Many possibilities
present themselves to the naive researcher. Selection of a certain enterprise and
within this context the selection of a certain generation are secondary aspects. In
applied research, generally the choice of the case(s) is not up to the researcher,
but this doesn’t imply that the relation between the phenomenon to be studied
and the case(s) is much different: the phenomenon deserves to be central.

1.3 Historical background

Writing and speaking about case studies, one experiences some frustration: the
label ‘case studies’ seems to be used for many purposes. One is confronted with
several different strands of case study research. This is evident already by glancing
at some of the classic popular texts in the area: Glaser and Strauss (1967); Stake
(1995); Yin (1994, 1989) and Miles and Huberman (1984, 1994). Each one of
them has little in common with the others. On the other hand, in this field several
labels are in use, sometimes addressing the same subject, sometimes used for very
different things: case report, case history, case biography, case study and case
method.° The confusion relates to the fact that case studies originate from many
traditions. We mention the most important ones here.®

*The term ‘case study’ may refer to the process of research as well as to the end product of such a
process. To put an end to this confusion, Stenhouse suggested using the term ‘case record’ for the
end product, but this suggestion has not been followed (L. Stenhouse, in R.G. Burgess (1984)).
°An outstanding historical overview of the role of the label ‘case study’ in American sociology is
presented by Jennifer Platt (1992).

10 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

¢ The growth and development of many sciences, such as the health sciences, clinical
psychotherapy and law, went hand in hand with the study of cases. Description and
attempts to explain the peculiarities of a case precede, or are part of, steps towards
generalisation. In the teaching of these disciplines, cases still play an important role as
a didactical vehicle.” A similar orientation on cases can be observed in fields that devel-
oped later on, such as political science and organisational studies.
¢ A specific source of inspiration in social science is constituted by the traditional study of
a village or local setting in cultural anthropology (Malinowski, Margaret Mead and
many others).
¢ A third source is the sociological Chicago School. Street Corner Society (Whyte 1941);
The Jack Roller (Shaw, 2nd edn 1966); The Taxi Dance Hall (Cressey 1932); Boys in
White (Becker et al. 1961) and many other monographs illustrate this tradition. In this
tradition, it is not always evident that it is a general phenomenon, not the local setting
itself, that constitutes the focus of research.
¢ In political science, historical roots include a strong tradition building on case studies.
Later on, when the methodology of the behavioural sciences became dominant, this
tradition was partly replaced. Debates between proponents of the case study method
(only one case) and those of the comparative method (a few cases) and finally the cor-
relative method (many cases) still colour the field.
e Well-known from the field of psychology are the studies of Sigmund Freud and other
psychoanalysts. Later on, the study of individual persons (cases) on other domains, such
as personality psychology and clinical psychology, developed.
e More recently, the study of cases in many policy fields (e.g. social work, youth support,
labour market intermediary, the integration of ethnic minorities) presents new impulses.
Case study research in these fields is not seen as an admission of weakness, as it is in
some domains, but as one of the central strategies for research.

In recent decades, confusion increased because the character of case studies

changed rapidly within the social and the behavioural sciences. While in the past
basic research, by means of a qualitative, exploratory approach, dominated the
field, nowadays attention has shifted to applied research. The present-day popularity
of terms such as ‘policy experiment’ and ‘evaluation research’ (both strands often
using case studies as their preferred research strategy) is an illustration of this
development.* Another relatively recent development is the blending of qualita-
tive and quantitative approaches (see section 7.2).
oy

7Concerning the use of case studies, or rather more or less ‘extensive case reports’ in education, see
Lee (1983). The ‘Harvard Business School’ tradition is well known (see, for instance, Stein 1952).
This is an example of an education-guided compilation of cases for management scientists. The
cases, which are described in great detail, concern the change of production from military purposes
to civilian aims; and collective decision-making in the United States during and after the end of
the Second World War. Other examples of the use of case descriptions in education are given by
Towl (1969) and Windsor and Greanias (1983). The most useful book on this topic is perhaps
Easton (1992). Learning to summarise information, to understand, to diagnose, to invent alterna-
tive scenarios, reduction and selecting from alternatives are illustrated with the help of an example
of an industrial take-over. A web source is: ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/case.html
8The distinction between basic research and applied research is highlighted in section 2.4.2.

What Is a Case Study? 11

 1.4 Methodological point of departure

This book is based on a simple central principle: the idea that different traditions
in, and strategies for, social science research are complementary rather than incom-
patible. Therefore, we emphasise a common methodological core for case studies
and other types of research. This strongly contrasts with the majority of methodology
texts, in which a major split between ‘the scientific method’ and the ‘case study
method’ dominates. For ‘science’, labels such as ‘quantitative’ and ‘hypothetico-
deductive method’ are used; in the context of ‘case studies’, labels such as ‘quali-
tative’ and ‘holistic’ are more common. In debates on the results of case studies
(e.g. with respect to the relevance of an evaluation research project), not infre-
quently invalid arguments are used to upgrade or, conversely, to downgrade,
research results. The know-how to posit case studies in a rational way in the general
scientific enterprise seems to be lacking. As far as is evident from these texts, one
assumes that intensive research methodology is quite different from extensive
research methodology. Especially with respect to applied research, it seems necessary
to correct this exaggeration.
Literature on the methodology of case studies is, comparatively speaking, not
vast, and is actually very heterogeneous. The relative lack of reflection on the
methodology of case research means there are few additions to the existing litera-
ture. Researchers cite the already well-known texts; newer publications refer to
the older ones. Often it is insufficiently clarified what additional value case studies
contribute to the results of a survey, and vice versa. Many researchers experience
difficulties in formulating conclusive results based on their case studies, in sharp
contrast to their ability to do so in the field of survey results (compare Yin, 1993:
70). They seem to rely on the premise that descriptions and interview reports
speak for themselves (this especially is the case when quotations from interviews
are exclusively used for illustrative purposes) and pay little attention to the spe-
cific research question.

1.5 Definition

To elaborate our introduction into the difference between intensive and extensive
research, let’s try to attain a sharper outline. Case studies are already difficult
enough to define as a research strategy, because typologies of research strategies
are generally based on different sources of data. A case study, however, is compat-
ible with many data sources, and therefore hard to posit in a system of strategies.
The case study may be defined in different ways, one definition being broader
than the other. We prefer to offer a definition that includes those properties that
are present in most case studies. We attach the word ‘most’ to several of these
properties in order to indicate that not all aspects are always present. This implies

12 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

that a debate about the question of whether a certain research project is a case
study or not is not always fruitful.°
A case study refers to the study of a social phenomenon:

¢ carried out within the boundaries of one social system (the case), or within the boundo-
ries of a few social systems (the cases), such as people, organisations, groups, individu-
als, local communities or nation-states, in which the phenomenon to be studied enrols
¢ in the case’s natural context
¢ by monitoring the phenomenon during a certain period or, alternatively, by collecting
information afterwards with respect to the development of the phenomenon during a
certain period
e in which the researcher focuses on process+tracing: the description and explanation of
social processes that unfold between persons participating in the process, people with
their values, expectations, opinions, perceptions, resources, controversies, decisions,
mutual relations and behaviour, or the description and explanation of processes within
and between social institutions
e where the researcher, guided by an initially broad research question, explores the data
and only after some time formulates more precise research questions, keeping an open
eye to unexpected aspects of the process by abstaining from pre-arranged procedures
and operationalisations
e using several data sources, the main ones being (in this order) available documents,
interviews with informants and (participatory) observation
e in which (optionally), in the final stage of an applied research case study project, the
investigator invites the studied persons and stakeholders to a debate on their subjective
perspectives, to confront them with preliminary research conclusions, in order not only
to attain a more solid base for the final research report, but sometimes also to clear up
misunderstandings, ameliorate internal social relations and ‘point everyone in the same
direction’.

It is a wide definition. Perhaps too wide? What does it exclude?

° Almost every author on the topic ‘case study’ presents his own definition. In most of them some
of the elements of our encompassing-definition are mentioned or emphasised. An overview of
definitions would serve some academic purpose, but is not useful in the present context. Here, we
limit ourselves to a comparison with Yin’s definition. In his view, the case study is determined by
the ‘how’ and ‘why’ research questions; by evénts in which the researcher has no control, and is
restricted to contemporary situations, not to situations in the past. In the 1994 edition of Case
Study Research, Yin adds two more elements: the real-life context, and the fact that the boundaries
between phenomenon and context are not clear. We do not agree with Yin with respect to the
necessity of contemporary phenomena. With regard to phenomena in the past, a retrospective
approach is fitting, and can be put into practice in a case study (although observation as a research
technique is excluded). Furthermore, the fact that researchers have no control over actual behav-
ioural events is only relevant in so far as causal research questions are at hand; it is less relevant
with respect to descriptive purposes, for which case studies can be used as well (Yin, 1994:
Chapter 1). The argument about the necessary vagueness of the boundaries between phenomenon
and context is represented in our definition in two places: studying a phenomenon in its natural
surroundings is based on this argument as well as using an ‘open approach’.

What Is a Case Study? 13

 Excluded are, of course, extensive approaches, the most typical of them being
social surveys. In a standard social survey many people are approached, but in
their capacity as mutually isolated individuals, generally at only one specific
moment, using one data source exclusively (verbal responses). Also excluded is a
standard survey even if it takes place in one bounded social system, for instance
a village. Some methodologists would call this a case study too, especially if that
village is selected from a set of villages about which the researcher wishes to draw
conclusions. But here the label ‘case’ means that for practical purposes only the
sample is restricted to one local setting. Other characteristics of such a project are
typical for standard extensive research. From a purely formal point of view, one
could likewise label a survey on people’s norms and values in France a case study,
especially if the domain of the wider project is, for instance, Western European
countries, and the project is repeated in other countries, such as Belgium or
Norway. But this use of the label ‘case study’ has nothing in common with what
is defined as a case study in this book. ji
In identifying ‘case studies’ with ‘intensive research’ and focusing on the percep-
tions, interactions and decisions of people, we attach a substantive meaning to the
label ‘case study’. This contrasts with a purely formal approach, in which a case
study would relate simply to the study of one case versus other approaches that
involve a number of cases. It might be possible to combine both points of view and
state that some research project (such as the survey in France) is a survey as well
as a case study. For reasons of clarity, we avoid this ambiguity in using the label
‘case study’.
Excluded, too, are laboratory experiments and simulation studies because some
of their essential characteristics include manipulation and isolation from the natu-
ral context. When taken in a strict sense, our definition also excludes the two
powerful sub-traditions focusing on individuals, respectively on nation-states, as
practised in psychotherapy on the one hand, and by political scientists/economists on
the other hand. If we follow a more ecumenical course, however, by leaving some
aspects of the definition out, these approaches would fall well within the boundaries
of our definition.

1.6 Additional remarks about the definition

The label ‘case study’ nowadays is not only used in connection with the study of
one case, but includes the study of a small number of cases as well. ‘Small’ means
that normally not more than four or five cases are included in a study: Exceptions,
however, exist, in which the number of cases may be as many as 40 or 50, par-
ticularly when individuals are cases. In the older literature, a sharp distinction used
to be maintained between ‘non-comparative’ or ‘case studies’ (N=1) and the
‘comparative method’, in which more than one case is included (Lijphart 1971:

14 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

Eckstein 1975; George 1979).'° The latter approach was called the ‘case-oriented
comparative method’ by Ragin (1987), and later on ‘diversity-oriented methods’
(Ragin 2000). The generally used label nowadays is ‘comparative politics’. The
reader should be aware of the fact, however, that all research boils down to com-
parison. Even if only one case is studied, implicitly comparisons are made with a
standard or an ideal case, or with the case itself in an earlier phase of development.
Hence, from a methodological point of view, the fading away of this distinction is
not regrettable. In this book, wherever useful, we apply the labels ‘single-case studies’
(N=1) and ‘multiple-case studies’ (N>1)."!

The phenomenon is studied in its natural surroundings because, at the start of the
research, it is not yet quite clear what the spatial and temporal boundaries of the
phenomenon are. In other words, it is not yet clear which properties of the context
are relevant and should be included in modelling the phenomenon, and which
properties should be left out. Therefore, for the time being it is better not to isolate
the phenomenon from its context.
Studying ‘a phenomenon in its natural context’ means that the researcher does
not set apart individuals from their normal life situation, such as in a standardised
interview, or that (s)he models a social process under the simplifying conditions of
a laboratory experiment, but that (s)he studies social phenomena with as little
disruption of the original setting as possible. Moreover, because the research takes
place in the natural context of the phenomenon, we may be able to explore — in
repeated case studies — the significance of different social and physical contexts and
their impact on the social process.

BOX 1.4

A complex phenomenon in an open social system such as those described in Box

1.1 is far removed from examples we meet in our natural or physical environment.
For the malfunctioning of an electric circuit at home, three explanations may suf
fice: a defective bulb, a defective switch or some loose contact in the wiring. Each
A

oy (Continued)

(ln political science, the struggle with one of its sources, the historical sciences, has triggered a
protracted debate, in which authors such as Verba, Lijphart, Eckstein and George argued, about the
role of case study research (N=1) as opposed to the strategy called comparative method (N>1). A
summary of the debate is included in Appendix 2.
Yin (1994) uses the labels ‘single-case designs’ and ‘multiple-case designs’. Miles and Huberman
(1984) discuss ‘within-site analysis’ versus ‘cross-site analysis’. In the second edition of their
Qualitative Data Analysis, these labels are replaced by ‘within-case displays’ and ‘cross-case displays’
(Miles & Huberman 1994).

What Is a Case Study? 15

 (Continued)

of these explanations may be tested by one simple experiment. Characteristics of

the house or its surroundings are irrelevant. However, with broad social science
problems, many factors come into play. For example, in fractured relations
between the established insiders and the outsiders in a little town, one always
wonders whether it is a specific problem of this town. Or is it the same as in other,
surrounding, towns? Or can it even be broadened out and applied to problems
of immigration in western European countries? Or do we deal with a clash
between very specific cultural subgroups, subgroups that get into trouble wherever
they come into contact with each other? Does the local press play a role, or is it
the national media that triggers the emergence of riots? What are the reference
groups (or cultures) of different stakeholders? Thus, it is often impossible to define
the relevant contextual properties of the phenomenon at the start of a study.

The monitoring approach differs strongly from the one-moment measurement in

a survey. This is so even if we compare the case study’s monitoring with a ‘multi-
moment’ survey, such as a panel survey, that is a ‘repeated’ survey. In a case study
it is generally not possible to distinguish sharply between different measurement
‘waves’. Normally, observations are collected continuously but irregularly during
the relevant period (e.g. a 10-day period, a month or six months). Research designs
in which relevant variables are measured at several moments, and in which changes
in the environment can be monitored at the same time, provide many advantages
over the ‘one-moment survey’, certainly where time-lags regarding the impact of
one variable on the other are concerned. Our insight into the association of succes-
sive events and conditions is much furthered by longitudinal research compared to
transversal (= cross-sectional, one-moment) research.

In order to describe and explain (parts of) social processes, doing a case study
presents a unique opportunity to focus on social interactions and the developing
meanings that participants in the system attach to each other, and how they inter-
pret each other’s acts. Another object of our attention is the existence of multiple
realities: the different, and sometimes contrasting, views participants in a system
have, and their diverging interpretations of events and conditions. Moreover, in
applied research of innovations, one of the standard foci is on factual and per-
ceived physical and social bottlenecks, and how people cope with them. These
aspects of the research approach are elaborated in section 2.2.1.

As in all research, in doing a case study we focus on the problem we want to solve.
Whatever research project one has in mind, the research question is the point of
departure. In the majority of case studies the researcher starts with a rather broad
and perhaps sometimes still vague question. If little is known about the object one

16 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

can only pose broad ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions. This does not exclude the fact that
the researcher, after defining the problem, proceeds by selecting some possibly
applicable theories. Generally, during the research process the broad question
develops into a series of more precise questions. In most case studies the researcher
tries to maintain a maximal openness towards unknown aspects, and to ‘let the
object speak’ (serendipity!'’). This implies — for most case studies — an exploratory
approach (see section 2.2.3).'* However, occasionally, a case study starts with pre-
cise questions, or even with an hypothesis to be tested (see section 2.2.2).!4 The
latter requires an all but exploratory approach.

In case studies several data sources are used. Obviously, documents as well as
interviews and observational data are not always available. In the eyes of many
scientists, the case study is more or less identical with field research in a natural
context, as is well known from cultural anthropology. A case study, however,
need not necessarily include participatory observation. The possibility to observe
behaviour renders the case study exclusively apt for studying contemporary
phenomena. But we also use the label ‘case study’ for some forms of historical
studies in a not too distant past. One may afterwards collect information about
developments during a specified period. In historical case studies, exclusive use is
made of documents (or, if the recent past is concerned, of oral history). Particularly
with respect to organisational studies, in which we want to understand an extant
situation by reconstructing developmental processes through the use of docu-
ments and/or interviews with participants, but also on the macro- and micro-levels,
retrospective case studies are carried out. Asking retrospective questions may give
us some insight in what happened in the recent past, or about the perceptions earlier
people had about each other and about the process itself, However, apart from the
fact that we do not always know the proper questions to ask because of lacking
information, or that we even don’t know the suitable informants, answers on retro-
spective questions are notoriously liable to bias. If possible, collecting data ‘on the
spur of the moment itself’ is to be preferred. Being critical about the data and the
way they are gathered is one of the key requirements of the researcher’s attitude.
‘The most important rule for all data collection is to report how the data were
created and how we came to possess them’ (King et al. 1994: 51).
oy?

!2This nowadays well-coined term refers to the fairly common experience of observing unantici-
pated, anomalous and strategic data which may start the development of a new theory or extend
an existing theory (see Merton 1945; Merton & Barber 2004).
'3The ideal goal of an exploratory researcher is, of course, that some day (s)he may stumble upon
a great discovery, such as Beveridge (1950), who describes how, in 1889, a laboratory assistant
accidentally observed the urine of a dog whose pancreas had been removed. The amount of sugar
in the urine led to the discovery of the relation between the pancreas and diabetes.
\4A hypothesis is a precise question with an answer to that question, accompanied by a question
mark. The aim of the researcher is to test whether the question mark can be omitted.

What Is a Case Study? 17

Often in case studies, the applied researcher deals with several (groups of)
stakeholders, each with their own perceptions, interpretations, arguments, expla-
nations and prejudices. It may be very useful to confront each of these groups with
the ideas and opinions of some of the others in order to better understand the
history of sometimes long-standing controversies or prejudices. Also, the researcher
may take the opportunity to present his/her preliminary results to the participants
in order to gather last-minute corrections and additions. The general expression for
this procedure is ‘member checking’.
In some forms of applied case research a further step is being taken. If it is
detected that different groups of stakeholders have different views, the researcher
may see it as his/her task to bring all participants to agreement. Now, the research-
er’s role is linked to a change agency role. This generally implies lengthy workshops,
in which the researcher invites comments of all stakeholders, where groups present
their opinions, etc. This merger of research and action agency is generally called
‘action research’. It is representative for much of modern qualitative approaches in
applied sociology. In this book action research is not our focus of interest.

1.7 An holistic approach?

Often, in defining ‘case studies’, some expression indicating a ‘holistic approach’

is added.

The case study ... is a way of organising social data so as to preserve the unitary
character of the social object being studied. (Goode & Hatt 1952)

Case studies are those research projects which attempt to explain (w)holistically the
dynamics of a certain historical period of a particular social unit. (Stoecker 1991)

The label ‘holistic’ means we have to take into account that behaviour of people
and social phenomena, in general, are determined by a complex set of causes. As a
consequence, simple causal models, such as those used in most survey analysis, are
not adequate.
In a more technical language, statistical interaction (between causal and contex-
tual variables) is the rule; simple models of additive independent variables are not
adequate. Put in this way, one cannot but agree that ‘holistic researchers’ have a
point. However, if this leads to radically refusing to think in terms of variables, one
is likely to throw away the baby with the bathwater. Compare the following
quote:

In most variable-oriented work, investigators begin by defining the problem in a way

that allows examination of many cases (conceived as empirical units or observations);
then they specify the relevant variables, matched to theoretical concepts; and finally they
collect information on these variables, usually one variable at a time — not one case at a

18 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 time. From that point on, the language of variables and the relations among them
dominates the research process. The resulting understanding of these relations is shaped
by examining patterns of co-variation in the data set, observed and averaged across many
cases, not by studying how different features or causes fit together in individual cases.
The alternative case-oriented approach places cases, not variables, centre stage. (Ragin, in
Ragin & Becker 1992: 5)

The following sour comment on the analysis of survey data is also very illustrative:

...the person disappears from the analysis, which instead merely compares traits, The
person who is recorded on a polling schedule is not only dissolved by becoming a set
of traits individually tabulated; he almost fails to exist from the beginning by virtue
of the narrow range of the data concerning him. (Goode & Hatt 1952: 331)

The comment of the clinical psychologists Gordon and Shontz (1990: 16) is
very apt:

A suitable guideline (in a case study, PGS) is to formulate the research problem by
stating: ‘I wish to study a person who...’ and following that with a description of the
condition, experience or circumstances of interest (the obvious contrast is with the
classical formulation: ‘I wish to test the hypothesis that...’) after which a specification
of the reasons why the study is important, is to follow. For example, I wish to study
a person who is adapting to the prospect of dying from a terminal illness, because
facing death is a universal problem, and what I learn about that person will reveal one
of many ways to experience and deal with it. Knowing in detail how one person does
so will open up possibilities for studying how other persons deal with it and eventu-
ally for discovering which aspects are universal, which differ as a function of general
characteristics of people (traits, values, motives, aptitudes and abilities) and which are
idiosyncratic. Used appropriately, such knowledge will promote understanding among
counsellors and give guidance to others who face similar problems in the future.

In holistic explanations in the classical sense, one doesn’t take recourse to

general laws and initial conditions from which an occurrence or condition is
deduced, but explanation is based on ‘the pattern’ of the existing situation, which
is called ‘a type’. In this view, the difference between explanans (the statements that
explain) and explanandum (the thing to be explained) disappears. An explanation is
never ‘ready’, but is continually elaborated. Because each element of a pattern can
change, it may influence other elements. Such ideas are easily recognised in many
arguments for qualitative research '° but they are not accepted in the mainstream
of social science research.
The battle between the ‘variate language’ and a ‘typological approach’ is
almost as old as science itself. In this context, reference is made to a ‘Galilean

'5See, for instance, Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Denzin and Lincoln (1994/2000). A first examination
of the holistic point of view in science is offered by Diesing (1972).

What Is a Case Study? 19

approach’ versus an ‘Aristotelian approach’. Our view on this matter is that it is
a misunderstanding to think that researchers are interested in ‘the complete
person’ or in an exhaustive description of all the ins and outs of a social system.
Researchers who emphasise the ‘holistic character’ of a case neglect the fact that,
starting from a research question, the researcher omits many specific factors and
conditions that (s)he considers irrelevant, to be separated in analysis from the
relevant properties of the phenomenon to be studied and the general factors that
influence it. That is, the researcher is interested in general or at least generalisable
phenomena and does not follow an idiographic interest (i.e. is only interested in
this particular case). A researcher always selects, looks at the world from a certain
point of view, and reduces the complexity of reality to a simplified model that
seems to be adequate for the solution of the research problem. Failures are pos-
sible of course; some observed and measured data may afterwards prove to be
irrelevant, while some relevant properties are erroneously left out in the initial
modelling. But we do not make any scientific progress if we keep thinking in
terms of ‘we must observe the whole’, instead of thinking in terms of properties
or variables.
What is the origin of the point of view that case studies should be ‘holistic’? It
originates from the usual situation that a case study is undertaken because it is not
(yet) possible to isolate the phenomenon under study from its environment: we
simply do not yet know which variables are relevant for the model and which variables
are not. In such a situation it seems wise not to be too selective in the choice of
variables. That is not to say that we, as an unguided missile, are going to observe
everything (if that would be possible). Making use of available theoretical knowl-
edge is always to be advised. But arguments for an holistic approach in our view
should be taken as a warning against

¢ a premature selection of aspects by the researcher

* a premature closure where one is not open for unexpected aspects
* too simple models of reality, in which, for instance, interactions are not taken into account
between several independent variables and neither are non-linear associations!®
* a premature closure of schemes for data collection and data analysis (on the contrary,
one should always be ready to follow unexpected leads in the data as this implies a
general search for a flexible research practice)
* negligence of the fact that human beings attach meanings to occurrences, facts, circum-
stances, other people, and that these meanings differ between persons and are liable to
change in the course of the social process.

Holism, in this sense, is not a vague concept, but an intelligent choice as long as a
satisfying model of the phenomenon is not attained.

'°A non-linear relation between two variables means that their relationship cannot be portrayed
by a straight line, such as the relation between length and weight of people (linear between certain
boundaries).

20 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 In the same vein, we add that a case study is not necessarily ‘qualitative’. In
most textbooks an ‘open’ approach is strongly associated with a qualitative style
of analysis and reporting (analysis and reporting in words, not numbers'). That is
why many scientists in cultural anthropology and sociology identify case studies with
a qualitative approach. However, case study research is not to be identified with
qualitative research. First, qualitative research contains many more approaches
(such as using focus groups, or performing a qualitative analysis of documents, or
doing an extended series of non-structured interviews). Second, in several case
studies the wealth of within-case data about sub-units!” requires a strongly quanti-
fied measurement and analysis. And in political science case studies, the interest in
generalisation, and in systematic quantitative research in order to reach compara-
bility of cases, has been present almost from the beginning. Besides, the qualitative/
quantitative dichotomy is used in many different ways, and the use of numbers to
represent categories of variables is of minor importance from an epistemological
point of view. That is a general reason why we prefer to abstain from these labels.

1.8 Conclusions

There are two ways to learn how to build a house. One might study the construction
of many houses — perhaps a large subdivision or even hundreds of thousands of
houses. Or one might study the construction of one particular house. The first
approach is a cross-case method. The second is a within-case or case study method.
(Gerring 2007: 1)

This quote may act as a very apt and short formulation of what a case study is
about. A case concerns a specific instance or manifestation of the phenomenon to
be studied. A case study may be based on one case (a single-case study), or on sev-
eral cases (a multiple-case study). Furthermore, a case may involve only one actor,
such as a person, an organisation or a village, or it may involve several, sometimes
many, interacting actors (such as in studying a conflict between organisations, a
conversation between people, a riot involving hooligans and the police, or a traffic
accident). ;
At least three traditions can be distitiguished depending on the level of the
inquiry. At the micro-level, in the health sciences, psychology and psychotherapy,
a strong tradition exists of N=] studies, aiming at the healing of this patient or
helping this client. While in earlier times many of these studies lacked a firm
methodological framework, nowadays most of them are much more disciplined in
the striving for comparable data and in the general goal of understanding an illness

'7Eor instance members of a studied organization, or people living in a village destructed by a

typhoon.

What Is a Case Study? 21

and finding an adequate treatment. At the meso-level, disciplines such as sociology,
anthropology, history, the administrative and organisational sciences, education and
many others use the label ‘case studies’ in research with an emphasis on detailed
description and an understanding and explanation of a social process or phenom-
enon. At the macro-level, the political sciences and parts of economy apply the
label ‘case studies’ mostly to those research projects that try to uncover rela-
tionships between causes and effects using a small number of units, mostly
nation-states.
In this book, our focus is on the meso-level.
A case study is defined as the study of a social phenomenon

° in one, or only a few, of its manifestations

ein its natural surroundings
e during a certain period
e that focuses on detailed descriptions, interpretations and explanations that several cat-
egories of participants in the system attach to the social process
e in which the researcher starts with a broad research question on an ongoing social
process and uses available theories, but abstains from pre-fixed procedures of data col-
lection and data analysis, and always keeps an eye open to the newly gathered data
in order to flexibly adjust subsequent research steps
e that exploits several sources of data (informants, documents, observatory notes)
e in which sometimes the participants in the studied case are engaged in a process of
confrontation with the explanations, views and behaviours of other participants and with
the resulting preliminary results of the researcher.

By the research strategy that is called ‘case study’ many different phenomena
may be studied. The case study has its own place in the gallery of social science
strategies. It is, together with other strategies, based on a common methodological
framework. However, a clear positioning of the case study between the others is
still lacking. This is one of the consequences of the complex origin of the case
study: it has its roots in several disciplinary traditions.

EXERCISES

1.1 In addition to those given in Box 1.1, find another example of a social
phenomenon that can be fruitfully studied in an intensive as well as an
extensive way. Define a research question. Elaborate in not more than 15
lines the main steps taken in each research approach.
1.2 Insection 1.2, 16 examples are presented as phenomena that can be the
subject of a case study. (a) Define the level (micro-, meso- or macro-) for
each example. (b) For each example, define a research question. (c) For
each research question, select one or more cases to study. (d) With each
case, which actors are involved?

22 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 a Find one or two monographs on a case study in a policy field in a library.
Make sure the monographs are less than 10 years old. (a) Why do you
define these monographs as case studies? (b) Detect the phenomenon
to be studied and the research question(s) asked. (c) Write down the
selected cases and the units involved. You will be asked to use these
monographs for answering more questions in following chapters.
1.4 Scrutinise the cases in the selected monographs for the elements of the
definition of a case study presented in this chapter. In which respects do
the cases agree with the definition, in which respects do they differ?
11RD) Do the authors of the selected monographs use the idea of an holistic
approach? How do they define this? What is the importance of their
arguments?
AIS Some forms of desk research exist that are sometimes considered to be
examples of case studies as well. An example might be a comparative
study of styles of reporting the same crime in several national newspa-
pers during a certain period. On the basis of our definition, check in which
respects this kind of research qualifies as a case study, and in which
respects it does not.
Seen e
KEY TERMS

extensive research natural context

intensive research continuous monitoring
phenomenon multiple data sources
case exploratory approach
micro-, meso- and macro-level action agency
confusion of phenomenon and case single- and multiple-case studies
historical origins holistic approach

What Is a Case Study? 23

 When to Conduct a Case Study?

In this chapter we are in search of the conditions that invite us to select a case
study as our research strategy. After an introduction (section 2.1), we illustrate
the type of research questions that are typical for most case studies (section 2.2).
In section 2.3, we discuss several specific sets of research conditions that may
prompt us to perform a case study. Some further dilemmas have to be taken into
account before embarking on a research project (section 2.4). We need informa-
tion about the ‘context’ of the project. For instance, is it an autonomous research
project, or is it typically additional or auxiliary research, preceding or following
a survey? It may even be part of a broad research programme in which docu-
mentary analyses, surveys, perhaps experiments are additional components (see
section 2.4.1). Another preliminary question is about whether we deal with basic
research or applied research (section 2.4.2). A third question concerns the tar-
geted domain of generalisation: do we intend to generalise results to a larger,
non-studied set of cases, or are we satisfied with the results for the specific cases
under study (section 2.4.3)? In section 2.5 the contents of this chapter are sum-
marised and conclusions are drawn.

2.1 Introduction

Whether it concerns an experiment, a survey, a case study or whatever combina-

tion of strategies, we always have to:

e first, carefully acknowledge and formulate the problem(s) we intend to solve with this
research endeavour, and
¢ afterwards, carefully evaluate to what extent we have been successful.

In other words, answering the research question is central. This basic principle is
obvious, but it tends to be neglected now and then. Naive researchers may assume
that ‘their interest in phenomenon X’ sufficiently legitimises their work. Research,
however, is a costly enterprise. Defective research implies a waste of (mostly,
taxpayers’) money. In our view, the researcher has the obligation to conceptualise
as sharply as possible which problems have to be solved and which questions have
to be answered in order to design an adequate research project. Without a research
question to answer, the researcher is liable to endlessly continue collecting and
analysing data without ever reaching a satisfying goal. Moreover, it would be
impossible to decide which research steps are relevant, which ones irrelevant.
Finally, if one cannot relate the outcomes of a research project to the initial
research questions, it is impossible to evaluate the research project itself.
The type of research question determines to a large extent whether we select an
extensive or an intensive strategy. Therefore, in section 2.2, we tackle the types of
research question that prompt us to carry out a case study.
The character of the research question, however, provides not the only rational
argument for conducting a case study. Other rational arguments relate, for instance,
to the specific conditions where a case study is the research strategy to select, such as
in working on design questions or in doing action research. But these specific condi-
tions include as well research endeavours where other strategies, such as randomised
experiments, might be used or even be preferable, but cannot be realised.

2.2 Research questions

2.2.1 Broad questions on social processes

Which research questions turn a case study into the preferred strategy?
If the impetus for our research project lies in some broad, familiarizing, questions
about a social process, doing a case study seems to be a fitting approach. Some
examples are given in Box 2.1.

BOX 2.1

e Which forms of discriminatory behaviour are present in this organisation?

e What is the state of affairs in this village with regard to relations between the
established insiders and the outsiders?
e in what manner does this small group of youngsters belonging to an ethnic
minority develop into a gang? ;
e What are the careers of these drug-users?
e In which ways do the French railways obtain public support for the planning
of a route for the high speed train?
e How does an in-company price adjustment system work?
e Why is absenteeism at this conveyor belt higher than at another conveyor belt?
e Why has the merger process of these hospitals developed in a conflicting
way, and in other hospitals more harmoniously?
e
Generally, posing a broad research question results from a relative absence of
knowledge about the process to be studied, otherwise one could have phrased a

When to Conduct a Case Study? 25

more specific, precise question or even an hypothesis to begin with. Starting with
a broad question usually results, during the process of research, in many detailed
questions.
Focusing on social processes, what might be the main groups of variables we are
interested in? First, people’s thoughts, values, expectations, motives, opinions,
experiences, attitudes and behaviours. We emphasise that we do not simply aggre-
gate over individual's various opinions or attitudes, but we explicitly pay attention
to differences between values, norms, opinions, attitudes and behaviours of various
(groups of) people involved in the phenomenon. If we wish to gain insight into
the worlds of several groups of stakeholders, in contrasting visions, into the way
people perceive bottlenecks and the way they find a solution, we obviously select
a case study instead of a survey or an experiment as our research strategy. We want
to discover the world as seen by participants in the system, and try to explain why
they see it this way. A case study enables us, furthermore, to reliably monitor
changes in these characteristics by continuous monitoring, or at least by repeated
measurements.
It also implies asking people about how they perceive each other and influence
each other. In interviewing people about characteristics of other participants in the
system (What did board member John do at that moment? What were Bill’s
ideas?) we are able to check how far John’s reality concurs with the reality of oth-
ers. If we are able to elucidate with each individual his/her ideas about the opin-
ions of the others, we may compare these perceptions mutually, and compare
them as well with the model of reality constructed by the researcher so far.
The object of study is dynamic. Intensive research includes studying features
of the social environment as transitory interpretations constructed by different
groups of stakeholders. In the literature about this topic, it is emphasised that a
story of this type results from negotiations between the researcher (who poses the
questions, presents stimuli) and the researched. However, the interpretations of
the researched are sometimes difficult to detect, for example in children, mentally
deficient people or foreign language speakers. In addition, the utterances of the
researched people are in no way ‘the ultimate truth’ or sacrosanct: they reflect
only the views of some people and there are many different views. Nevertheless,
ample attention for participants’ own stories is one of the central strong points of
almost every case study in the social sciences. In social psychology, the partici-
pant’s story is called an account or a narrative account.
Furthermore, we focus on (changes in) social interactions between people. As a
result of communication and social interaction, ideas about each other start to
develop, ideas that stimulate individual behaviour and new interactions. Particularly,
as is often the case in policy research, if the focus is on success or failure of policy
measures, it is important to trace the ways in which behaviour is influenced by the
interaction of people, and when and how behaviour changes. But also, more con-
cretely, it is important to discover who helps or hinders whom, who tries to influence
who and which bottlenecks occur.

26 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 By describing certain successive behaviours or situations in detail, accompanied by
a description of the motives people attach to a change in their behaviour and the
changing perceptions they have about each other, we may obtain insights into micro-
level social processes which would remain hidden if we were restrained to simple
survey-like cross-tabulations. In doing a case study, we obtain solutions for explana-
tory problems on the micro-level that can be embedded in social science theories.
Summarising, if we want more information about what (groups of) people per-
ceive and decide, in relation to their interaction during a certain period, a case
study seems to be the optimal strategy. While at the start of a research project we
perhaps had a rather simple causal model in mind, we are now actually searching for
the ‘intervening variables in a causal chain’. Factors and circumstances mentioned
by people can help to fill in the causal process (see Box 2.2).

he ar
BOX 2.2 Detailing a causal chain

It is known from documentary evidence and surveys that immigrant children do

better at integrated schools than at ‘segregated’ schools. An easy interpretation
is that the probability of being befriended by native youngsters is higher in inte-
grated schools, and therefore the probability of picking up the language and
other useful subcultural habits at school may and integration into society gener-
ally. A case study showed that the improved results were partly caused by the
ambition ‘to do better than the natives youngsters’, an ambition that does not
develop at in segregated schools, where pupils feel less challenged.
fees ee)

An approach such as this is already more or less standard in education/labour

market research and in health and social care studies: what has been the career of
a specific person?; which schools?; why a switch?; what changes of jobs and peri-
ods of joblessness?; what explanations does the individual offer for each change?
The following quotes of qualitative researchers may illustrate the importance of
this approach: 5

Studies of individual cases allow the researcher to learn the intricate details of how a
treatment is working, rather than averaging the effect across a number of cases.
(Kennedy 1979)

We uncover all kinds of relationships in our ‘hard’ data, but it is only through the use
of this ‘soft’ data that we are able to ‘explain’ them. (Mintzberg 1979)

The word ‘only’ in this second quote is a bit exaggerated, but Mintzberg drives
home the point. When one is led by these desiderata, and when there are no practi-
cal or financial hindrances, a case study is an appropriate strategy to choose.

When to Conduct a Case Study? 27

 2.2.2 Precise research questions and hypotheses

Discussing the importance of research questions and immediately embarking upon

one special type — broad, orienting research questions — the reader may wonder
what other types can be distinguished. In this section we grasp the opportunity to
elaborate this point. Research questions may differ in at least two respects.
The first criterion refers to the classic distinction between

e descriptive
e explanatory, and
¢ predictive (or rather, in applied research, design) research questions.

Descriptive research questions are ‘what’ or ‘how’ questions. Explanatory research

questions are ‘why’ questions. Prediction questions have the format of ‘what will
happen if’ questions. Design questions (see section 2.3) refer to designing an inter-
vention: ‘What is the best way to change...?’
The second criterion relates to the state of our knowledge. In this light, research
questions can be distinguished by degree of completeness or precision, into

e object demarcations
e broad questions
e precise questions, and
e hypotheses.

In the following, we elaborate this second distinction.!

1. ‘Object demarcations’, such as ‘(a study of) six general elections in Britain’ have
little content, and consequently are of little importance, because a real question or
problem is not yet indicated. A study such as this may refer to a N=1 case study
(with Britain as the ‘unit’). It might also, in the frame of a study into the changing
political climate, refer to a N=6 study (that possibly may also be regarded as a case
study; the research question may refer to changing non-response habits in Britain),
or refer to a N=120,000,000 study (the units are the voters and the research ques-
tion may refer to individual determinants of voting behaviour) (this is Eckstein’s
example, see Eckstein 1975).

2. When we know little about our object, we are restricted to broad, orienting ques-
tions. Such questions characterise many case studies, and tackling them requires an
exploratory approach (see section 2.2.3). We emphasise that despite its broad
character, in order to fulfil its function as a ‘leading guide’ in research steps to be
taken, the wording of any research question, also the ‘broad’ ones, should be as
transparent and precise as possible!

'This distinction is derived from Bunge (1967).

28 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

3. Sometimes, however, it is possible to start a case study with a series of precise
questions. In case studies, they are used if one can build on earlier research.
A popular topic is, for instance, the description of an innovation in an organization,
and the different views of stakeholders on the matter, hindrances and bottlenecks.
Examples are the introduction of a computer network in an office, a new patient’s
intake system in a hospital, or a reorganisation after an industrial merger. We can
build already on research traditions in these fields because much is known about
the relevant variables, and the problems that may arise. Accordingly, a new research
project need not start with a broad, orienting question, but it is possible to start
with a series of closed, precise questions. Another example refers to studying the
causes of traffic accidents, as mentioned in Chapter 1. Much earlier research has
been done, and a rather precise model of the phenomenon can already be con-
structed. In this example, we will certainly collect data on the age of the people
involved, their yearly mileage, the type of car they use, weather and road condi-
tions, time of the day, and so on. Those variables are included in a first model of
the phenomenon because we expect them to be relevant.

4. If we dispose of earlier research results, laid down in a theory, we may even

accompany such precise questions with a preliminary answer. That is to say, we
start with an hypothesis: a combination of a precise statement followed by a ques-
tion mark. Our research project aims at eliminating the question mark, and by
doing so, at confirming (or falsifying!) the statement. Hypothesis-testing research
is a standard approach if we dispose of a theory that enables us to predict that in
a certain situation X will occur, and not Y or Z. Research like this is especially
interesting if we wish to decide between two or more theories leading to conflict-
ing predictions. Applications of theory testing are rather rare with case studies. One
famous example is Festinger et al’s When Prophecy Fails (1956) (see Box 2.3).

a
BOX 2.3. When Prophecy Fails (Festinger et al., 1956)?
Festinger and his colleagues infiltrated a group of people who were members of
a UFO doomsday cult in order to test his ‘cognitive’ dissonance theory’. Cognitive
dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory
beliefs simultaneously. This will lead people to change their beliefs to fit their
actual behaviour, rather than the other way round. The book documents the
increased proselytization (increasing efforts to find new followers) these people

(Continued)

2Adapted from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance under a Creative Commons

Attribution — ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).

When to Conduct a Case Study? 29

 (Continued)

exhibited after the leader's prophecy failed to come true. The prediction of the
Earth’s destruction, supposedly sent by aliens to the leader of the group, became a
disconfirmed expectation that caused dissonance between the cognitions ‘the
world is going to end’ and ‘the world did not end’. The members lessened
the dissonance by accepting a new belief that the world was spared because
of the faith of the group. The results confirmed the cognitive dissonance theory.

2.2.3 Exploration of data versus a stricter approach

One of the reasons for the overwhelming use of broad research questions in case
studies is that at the start of a research project we do not yet have a sharply
bounded model of the phenomenon, that is to say we do not know which proper-
ties of the context of the case under study are relevant. Assuming our phenomena
to be dependent on a variety of unknown contextual characteristics, it seems wise to
start by monitoring one case or a few cases in their natural context and study them
as thoroughly as possible.
Likewise, there is no complete inventory of variables available, nor measuring
instruments ready to use. Neither are procedures for data collection, nor codings
and ready-to-use procedures for data analysis. Our first research steps are tenta-
tive, and we are ready to change direction as a consequence of our findings. This is
what is called an exploratory research approach. Typical for an exploratory approach
is its flexibility and openness towards the phenomenon under study. No hypoth-
eses are formulated in advance. Research decisions follow the data; diversions are
allowed. One tries to get out of the data what’s in it. Flexibility instead of fixation
ahead is characteristic for an exploratory approach. Therefore, the odds on discov-
ering relevant aspects and finding really interesting results is much larger than in
doing research that follows routines that are already fixed and would be closed to
unexpected developments or new discourses findings.
This does not mean that we start our research without any ideas at all. The often
very sketchy theory we start with is instrumental in providing us with some guid-
ance, to help us in the preliminary selection of concepts and variables. During the
research process, the rudimentary theory is further developed, specified, perhaps
even modified or replaced by a more appropriate one.
Obviously, there is another side to the coin. One disadvantage of an exploratory
approach is that it requires much time. Researchers show a tendency to drift
around; a research project never seems to be terminated. A second disadvantage is
that as a consequence of the continuous adjustments in the process of research,
there is ample space for the researcher’s personal and situational biases to enter
research results. If the results of an exploring researcher are being criticised by a
colleague, (s)he can ‘always find a way out’, for instance by adding another variable

30 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

to the model. In this way, the research results are invulnerable to critique and
scientific progress is aborted from the beginning. Third, there is always the danger
of falling into the trap of capitalising on chance: a finding that is specific for the
researched case — and only for that case — is interpreted as a fact of general sig-
nificance. With exploration, the odds with respect to bias are much larger than
with testing, and accordingly the range, or scope, of research results is more mod-
est. Therefore, the explorer’s results should almost always be provided with a
question mark.
Some researchers are proponents of the idea that in following this bottom-up
approach a theory can be developed. Glaser and Strauss (1967) introduced the
expression ‘grounded theory’; Bromley (1986: 2) uses the label ‘case-laws’. But, apart
from the fact that we do not start without some preliminary ideas, the development
of atheory on the basis of research with one, or a few, case(s) cannot be more than
a starting point. Testing the model or theory is necessary, that is to say, if we aim at a
theory that covers more instances of the phenomenon than the one studied. A test-
ing approach requires more research and more (independent) cases, and, especially,
an a priori fixed approach that minimises the odds for the researcher’s biases.
In a testing approach, the researcher states his/her findings in clear and unambigu-
ous propositions that do not leave escape routes: either an hypothesis is confirmed or
it is falsified. At least, this is the basic idea in testing what is called a deterministic
relationship, where no exceptions are tolerated. In research practice we take errors in
measurement and perhaps even argumentation into account, and usually we con-
tinue testing an hypothesis or a theory in several other research endeavours. In recent
methodology, the concept of ‘deterministic’ is even ‘softened up’ in several ways, as
Box 2.4 and the discussion of Ragin’s solutions in section 4.3 will show.
In a testing approach, there is another side to the coin as well. We might miss
findings that were not expected, we might overlook the richness and peculiarities
of the phenomenon under study.

BOX 2.4 Exploring data versus testing data

The classic pair of polar concepts, ‘exploration’ and ‘testing’, probably requires
some updating. To start with, these labels are extremes that define a continuum.
This continuum refers to the explicitness of procedures (are they ‘written down’
in advance of the project and followed in the course of the project?) and the
researcher's accountability.
Exploration means that reality is approached with few pre-arranged ideas
about how to handle the research object. The research is carried out following
hunches, changing direction, sometimes in a very quick succession, and the
researcher is unaccountable for all ‘thinking and changing’.
(Continued)

When to Conduct a Case Study? 31

 (Continued)

On the contrary, the other extreme implies fixing all procedures beforehand,
and the researcher following a pre-arranged routine. In case of a deviation
(s]he is expected to carefully document her/his steps. The rigour of the method
is necessary in order to realise the idea of testing. It should be crystal clear
whether the initial statements about reality are rejected or accepted — for the
time being.
But all types of scientific endeavour have in common the ‘empirical cycle’ of
research:

Problem
Tentative solution
Data collection and analysis
Confronting the tentative solution with the data, often leading to a new problem
and a new cycle of research.

In testing research, the ‘tentative solution’ is a precise statement (question +

answer} that is called an hypothesis. A simple experiment may serve as an
example. The cycle is carried out only once, and it is carefully documented. |
In an exploratory approach, cycles are carried out repeatedly (and they some-
times remain undocumented and even unremembered!), leading to many itera-
tions and many intermediate ‘tentative solutions’.
The distinction between exploratory and testing approaches nowadays is less
important than it used to be. In quantitative research, the classical distinction
has become less useful because of the practice of multivariate analysis meth-
ods such as Generalised Linear Models, in which a continuous adjustment of
models replaces the old dichotomy ‘conjecture’ versus ‘refutation’. Second, the
occurrence of one falsification of a prediction is seldom handled as being
definitive. It is to be expected that the gradual disappearance of the earlier sharp
distinction will make it easier for survey researchers to accept the ‘weaker’ case
study methodology. Eventually, the pair of concepts relates to the degree of self-
criticism of the researcher; of his/her critical attitude versus data and interpreta-
tions. The stricter your approach is, the less ambiguity and the fewer interpretations
your data permits. Thereby, in following a stricter approach you make yourself
vulnerable; you are making it easier for an opponent to criticise you; there are
less ways out. This is a good methodological principle to keep in mind. So the
essence of the continuum defined by a flexible approach versus a fixed approach
is in heightening the researcher's awareness of the possible impact of one’s
biases in a flexible approach as well as the danger of premature closure in a
more rigid approach.

32 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 2.3 Specific conditions

In section 2.2 we explained that the impetus for doing a case study often is a broad
research question. We added that certainly sometimes a precise research question
or even an hypothesis is used at the start of a case study. Irrespective of the type of
research question, there are some specific conditions that prompt us to carry out
a case study.

Design problems. One of these situations refers to the presence of design problems,
which are often solved with the help of a small-scale or case study approach. In
basic (and applied) research, we try to solve problems of description (‘what is’ and
‘how’ questions) as well as problems of explanation (‘why’- questions). Besides, in
basic research, problems of prediction arise (‘is our theory sufficiently articulated
in order to predict future situations?’). In applied research, problems of designing
replace problems of prediction. A design may consist of a policy advice about a cer-
tain mix of policy measures. It may also be, in a more technical sense, the design
of a curriculum, of software, of an industrial strategy (a budgeting system; a plan-
ning strategy; a stock control system) or of a part of the organisation. In research
such as this, it is assumed that, to start with, descriptive problems with respect to
the actual situation have been solved in earlier research. Furthermore, it is assumed
that, with the help of theories, the extant situation is explained. Now the essence
of design research is to deduce the specific conditions under which another, more
desirable, state of the system can be attained, using these same theories. A specifi-
cation such as this results in a policy advice, a mix of measures, a design. Often, we
cannot be certain, however, about the adequacy of a proposed policy measure or a
package of measures — usually ‘ceteris paribus’ clauses are abundantly used in for-
mulating the policy advice. Therefore, we are not satisfied with the blueprint alone.
Its implementation has to be monitored (by process- or formative-evaluation). In
process-evaluation the researcher is enabled, during the process, to adjust policy
measures if they do not function satisfactorily, preferably in an experimental or
small-scale environment where not much harm can be done and that is not too
costly. Therefore, case studies are often used as an aid in solving design problems.
A series of preliminary designs of policy,‘packages’ (‘try-outs’) is carried out within
a handful of specific small social systems (e.g. school classes) to study the conse-
quences, in order not to cause any harm to the larger domain for which it is even-
tually designed. A specific asset of a case study is that it enables us to understand
emerging problems and their practical solutions in the social system under study.
Gaining insight into these aspects is very profitable in optimising our design or
policy advice. Typical for design research is the occurrence of many iterations. One
‘unit’ or a few ‘units’ (e.g. a school class or a department in a factory) are involved
in a series of trials, in which successive variants of the policy measure are imple-
mented. Cycles in which a minor or a major change in the design of the measure

When to Conduct a Case Study? 33

is implemented are repeated. With the help of a theory, we describe what is done
in each cycle, we explain why the design is not completely satisfactory, we deduce
which modifications are needed to lead to the desired result, and we test our
deductions in the next cycle. Finally, at the end, its overall success should be tested.
This is product- or summative-evaluation.

Action research. Some researchers explicitly link their research activities to change
agency. They are not satisfied by measuring opinions, attitudes and behaviours of
groups of stakeholders, but by confronting these with each other and bringing
them together in sessions under a professional ‘moderator’. In this way they try to
‘all head in the same direction’. In situations such as these, a combination of research
and action agency/social assistance is at hand. Obviously, this type of research is
only possible in the specific social system one intends to change, so a case study is
the fitting strategy to use.

The rarity of the phenomenon. Another specific condition refers to the rarity of the
phenomenon. Certain phenomena are very rare, such as, fortunately, some epidem-
ics or disasters. Well-known examples relate to the behaviour of a group of sectar-
ians who kept predicting the decline of the world after this prediction had been
falsified (see Box 2.3), the flood disaster in New Orleans in 2005, or a terrorist
attack on the scale of 9/11.The researcher deserves congratulations if (s)he succeeds
in studying an example (e.g. people’s behaviour under a terrorists attack) from
inside. In policy research, the domain is often rather small. Consequently, it is not
suitable for extensive research when one needs quite a number of units. If we
decided to study AIDS policy in the EC countries, or the procedures followed by
parliamentary survey committees since 1980, the maximum N is 20 or 25.
Furthermore, in evaluation research, the policy to be evaluated is often rather new.
As a consequence of this only a few cases are available that contain enough infor-
mation that justify their inclusion in the sample. One has to search for a long time
to find some cases that are functioning long enough to provide interesting informa-
tion. Anyway, case studies are the indicated research strategy.

Feasibility. A fourth rational motive for selecting a case study as a research strategy
refers to restrictions implied by the research — or the researcher’s! — context: another
approach might be preferable, but a case study is the only feasible one. An empha-
sis on these restrictions, which have little to do with the research question itself, can
be found, for instance, in the writings of a well-known author on case studies, R.K.
Yin. This need not surprise us since this author has his origins in experimental psy-
chology. He favours the experiment as the Kings’s way to solve a causality problem,
and posits othér approaches in a context ‘where a real experiment is not feasible’,
First, a phenomenon, such as a riot or a strike, cannot be invoked or simulated at
will in a psychology lab. The researcher will have to patiently wait until ‘it happens’
in reality (and it will be over before a survey can be organised!). Second, it may
happen that some policy experiment on a small-scale is undertaken, but the policy

34 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

agent decides on the selection of participants in the experiment, and/or self-
selection occurs. Here, the researcher has no say in the selection of experimental or
control groups, which generally results in bias. If owing to circumstances such as
these, we have little or no control over the objects of study, an experiment is
replaced by a (multiple) case study as a next best solution.

2.4 Further considerations

Before actually embarking on a case study, some preliminary questions have to be

asked and answered, questions that relate to the wider context of our research
endeavour:

¢ Is the planned case study intended to be an autonomous research project, or is it a minor

study, additional to a large survey, or is it part of a complex strategy (section 2.4.1)?
e Does our project concern basic research or applied research (section 2.4.2)?
e ls it our intention to generalise results from the studied cases to a larger set of cases, or
are we only interested in the cases actually studied (section 2.4.3)?
e Are we free to restrict or enlarge the domain at will (as often is the case in basic
research), or are we dealing with a domain already demarcated by the client? This final
question is tackled in Chapter 3.

2.4.1 Autonomous research or additional strategy?

A case study can be a quite autonomous project. But it may also be part of a complex
of several research approaches within a larger project. In the research report, the
role of the case study has to be made quite clear. In this second context, case stud-
ies often play a role as pilot project: the results of a prior case study may help us
to design a more extensive (survey) approach. Furthermore, a case study may
produce specific knowledge that can be used to design questionnaires and other
instruments for the main research effort (instrument construction). A case study
can also function in the reverse order: after studying a phenomenon in its ‘width’
by means of a survey, it is additionally researched in its ‘depth’ by the study of
some cases. In this way, the latter functions as a complementary design in order to
help in explaining, especially if a survey produces ambivalent or non-interpretable
results, or if the (multiple) case study is used for research on deviant cases.
Logically, research in the order ‘cases + survey —> cases’, is possible as well. In
Chapter 7 we will extend the discussion about the use of ‘mixed methods’.

2.4.2 Basic research or applied research?

Basic research is characterised by research questions aimed at developing, illustrat-

ing or testing general theories. Applied research aims at providing knowledge that
can be used in solving practical problems. Obviously, results of basic research

When to Conduct a Case Study? 35

might eventually find usage in solving practical problems, whereas applied research
might in the long run help in establishing theories. But these are unintended func-
tions. This is not to say that the report of an applied research project always con-
tains policy advice. Sometimes it is restricted to descriptive knowledge, or perhaps
also explanations are offered; the wording of policy suggestions is left to the reader.
If, however, policy suggestions are formulated, this means that the researcher has
tackled one or more design problems, a type of scientific problem that is absent in
basic research.
An obvious criterion to judge the quality of the results of an applied research
project is that results should be usable for the client, and hence the results of an
applied case study project should be usable too.
It is worth adding a few lines about quality criteria for results in scientific
research. The standards for research quality in social science are valid for case study
research as well as for all other research strategies. They are treated in almost all
textbooks on methodology, which is the reason why we do not extensively discuss
this topic here. We mention them here briefly, just as a help to memory.

1 Construct validity: are your tests, instruments, questions and observation schemes meas-
uring the concepts they intend to measure? Valid measurement in this sense means that
variations in measurement results are caused by variations in theoretical concepts, and
that we can explain why the variation in measurement results is caused by variation in
the concept.
2 Reliability: are the results of your measurements stable over time, independent of the
researcher(s), and independent of contextual properties? That is, in so far as your
results are intended to be stable over time and independent of contextual properties.
As implied in earlier sections, in case studies the ‘contextuality’ of some measurements
is accepted.
3 Internal or causal validity: is the relation between variables, interpreted by you as
causal, really causal? Or are the correlations resulting from other factors?
4 External validity or generalisability: are the results of your research project generalisable
to the targeted populations or domains?

In the world of qualitative research, many other systems of quality criteria were
introduced in the final decades of the twentieth century. Guba and Lincoln
(Guba 1981; Lincoln & Guba 1985; Guba & Lincoln 1994) are well known for
their publications in this area. Criteria such as trustworthiness, credibility, con-
firmability, transferability, and many others have found their way into research
projects and reports.
We do not consider it useful to define, compare and discuss these terms and
systems here. It would require a lot of space, while leading us to not much more
than variations on the concept of usability (see above). Besides, we consider the
development of alternative systems of quality criteria, each one to be used for a
separate strand of research (such as qualitative and quantitative) as one of the iess
fruitful enterprises in the social sciences.

36 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 The one and only central quality criterion that distinguishes applied research
from basic research is the striving for usability for the client of applied research
results. Starting from the idea of usability, several practical hints can be developed
(Swanborn 1996a).
A sharp distinction between applied (respectively, design) research and basic
research sometimes serves as a justification for the fact that in applied research
certain methodological benchmarks cannot always be attained (time is too short,
informants refuse to co-operate, several stakeholders take a counterproductive
attitude or have strongly contrasting expectations regarding the result of the research,
etc.). Regrettably, these are very realistic circumstances, but all this does not liberate
the applied researcher from his/her duty to do his/her utmost to keep to the tradi-
tional methodological criteria as much as possible — criteria that are no different for
basic and applied science. In basic research as well, practical restrictions lead to the
fact that a study can almost never be undertaken under perfect conditions. Scientists
who make a sharp distinction in this respect seem to neglect that methodological
criteria, such as reliability and validity, concern rules one has to strive for. Included
in these rules is the obligation to report one’s research steps explicitly, and to locate
weak points in order to enable the reader to value the results.

BOX 2.5 A special methodology for ‘design research’?

In several applied sciences, such as educational science, organisational science,

the policy sciences and the socio-technical sciences, the special character of a
separate ‘methodology for design research’ with specific quality criteria is
argued. We are of a slightly different opinion. Instead of emphasising the differ-
ences, we are inclined to stress that from the start the methods of the ‘design
sciences’, or applied sciences, policy sciences, practice-oriented sciences,
change-directed sciences, or whatever they are called are quite comparable to
the methods of basic research. Second, prediction problems in the basic sciences
and design problems in the applied sciences both originate in the solution of
explanation problems, because theories are at the base of all these problems. In
applied research one uses theories that are developed and tested in basic
research. Obviously, we admit that an €xplanation for an existing situation does
not ‘automatically’ provide us with the instruments to change the existing situa-
tion into a better one. The necessary conditions, specified in the theory, have to
be realised; variables have to be manipulated; several criteria, such as timing
and social acceptability, play a role. We do not deny that in applied research
there is often a long way to go between the first ideas, resulting from theory-
based predictions, and a blueprint of workable interventions. Evidently, severe
practical and technical problems have to be resolved. But this hardly necessitates
a separate ‘design methodology’ in social science.
—_——

When to Conduct a Case Study? 37

 2.4.3 The domain: cases as pars pro toto or stand-alone cases
In case studies we study one example, or a very restricted number of examples, of
a social phenomenon. A central preliminary question is: do we intend to generalise
our research conclusions based on this example or this small set of examples, to
a larger set? If this is our intention, we use the expression pars pro toto (a part
representing the whole) research. Alternatively, if it is not our intention to gen-
eralise our conclusions beyond the researched case(s), we use the expression
stand-alone cases.*
There is an important difference between basic research, in which we always
want to generalise, at least in principle, and applied research, in which the inten-
tion to generalise from the studied cases to a wider domain may or may not be
present. We illuminate this point below. In basic research, the collected knowledge
primarily serves to develop, to illustrate or to test scientific theories. If practical
interests are served as well, so much the better, but this aspect is not emphasised.
In basic research we are not especially interested in the phenomenon as it mani-
fests itself in this selected researched case, but the domain of the research question
is larger: we want to generalise, on the basis of the case, to a larger set of cases. That
is because theories and models transcend the specific case. They are abstractions
of concrete manifestations of the phenomenon. A selected case always deviates
more or less from a theory or model. From the start, the researcher is interested in
the question of which concepts and variables are of general interest: the selected
case is a more or less accidental ‘bearer’ of the phenomenon. Researchers strive for
a domain that is as large as possible.
Publications of researchers such as Glaser and Strauss (1967), many anthropolo-
gists and the Chicago School sociologists fit into a basic, theory-oriented tradition.
With some case studies from the famous Chicago School, it perhaps seems that the
author presents a description of a local community or organisation without the
intention to generalise to a larger set of cases, but this is mostly a misinterpretation.
The studied community is seen as representative of many others. Compare titles
such as Small Town in Mass Society (Vidich & Bensman 1958), The Conduct of the
Corporation (Moore 1967), The Dynamics of Bureaucracy (Blau 1955) and
Middletown (Lynd & Lynd 1929/1956). Here pars pro toto research was conducted.
Sometimes we stumble upon seemingly ‘basic’ case studies in which generalisa-
tion is not the objective. All the presidents men, by Bernstein and Woodward (1974)
on the Watergate scandal, might be an example. It is not applied science, but is it
basic science? It is perhaps better not to perceive this kind of research as science,
but to perceive it as pre-scientific, journalistic work. That does not exclude the fact
that publications of this kind can be used as raw material for generalising studies.
Indirectly or unintentionally, such studies may contribute to the making of

“In the context of ‘stand-alone cases’, Stake (1995: 3) uses the label ‘intrinsic case studies’, and in
the context of cases as pars pro toto the label ‘instrumental case studies’, Gerring (2007: 187) uses
the unfortunately chosen labels ‘single-outcome studies’ and ‘case studies’.

38 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

theories. Descriptive monographs can later be used by researchers in their efforts
to reach a higher level of abstraction, and to cover larger domains (see Box 2.6
for examples of this).

BOX 2.6 Examples of basic pars pro toto research

e A group of American sociologists (Becker et al. 1961) conduct a research
project on a medical campus to identify the ways in which students identify
with their new professional field and their teachers.
e Dutch criminologists (Bovenkerk 1977) study the behaviour of disco
bouncers within the frame of a general research programme about racial
discrimination.
e Lipset, Trow and Coleman (1956) study a trade union that showed a peculiar
deviation of Michels’s theory of oligarchisation, to detect the conditions under
which this general theory is invalid, or to detect a more general theory that
enables scientists to explain the existing findings as well as the exceptions.
e Glaser and Strauss (1965) study social interactions and processes of mean-
ing in hospitals around terminally ill patients. The social context was the
hospital ward. Within the ward the individual patients and their social con-
texts can be distinguished. The researchers did not aim at describing a
specific ward; their goal was to develop, to ‘ground’, a theory on social
processes in general. The theoretical concepts that, according to the authors,
were developed in this study, such as ‘awareness context’ and ‘social loss’,
illustrate this.
e Allison’s Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (1971,
1999). In this study several theories to explain the origins and solution of
international political crises are discussed and tested.

In applied research, however, the ambition to generalise our results beyond the
case(s) studied may or may not exist. Generally, policy-makers are only interested
in the improvement of the situation of one, or a few, specific social units. The aim
is not to develop, illustrate or test general theories. The collected knowledge has
to be usable for:

¢ practitioners (management, therapists, action agencies, technical personnel, CEOs)

in order to change part of reality, be it an individual (a clinical problem), an organi-
sation (e.g. with an eye to a go/non-go decision regarding a production line), a
local community, nation-state, or whatever.
e the design of (packages of) policy proposals, material objects such as computer hard-
ware and software, budget systems or whichever measures are deemed useful to change
an undesirable situation. We certainly do apply general theories, but these are used to
select concepts and theories and to provide an interpretative scheme.

When to Conduct a Case Study? 39

 If our targeted domain‘ is not larger than the cases selected for the study, we use
the term ‘stand-alone cases’. The domain may be the schools for special education
in a certain city; the four production departments in a factory; the institutionalised
care for asylum seekers in a certain region; a community; a hospital; a police station
or whatever organisation the policy refers to. In applied research the researcher will
be less inclined to eliminate specific, local characteristics of the case as irrelevant.
If the policy is directed towards that case, all factors, also case-specific ones, may be
of importance. This leads to the conclusion that in applied case studies, more than
in basic case studies, attention is drawn to the local situation and concentrates on
the embeddedness of the phenomenon in local contexts (see Box 2.7).

BOX 2.7. Examples of applied, ‘stand-alone’ research

e With respect to the intention to locate departments with a high level of interac-
tion with each other in each other's vicinity, the interaction intensity of all
departments of a community police force in a city are studied, the mutual
perceptions and appreciations are monitored, and wishes with respect to the
future location are inventoried.
e An evaluation research project into the intended and realised functions of a
social centre for prostitutes in a Red Light district.

However, in applied science, case studies are not, by definition, restricted to

stand-alone cases. Quite another situation exists when the set of cases in the
research question is much larger than the set of cases taken into empirical study.
Just as in basic research, these cases function as pars pro toto. So-called policy
experiments also fit this category (see Box 2.8).

BOX 2.8 Examples of applied, pars pro toto research

e Ina London police station, a researcher studies discriminatory behaviour by

male officers towards their female colleagues. The aim is to identify problems
and find practical solutions, which can then be used in other police stations
as well.
e The Ministry of Education is interested in how a new curriculum is being
introduced into primary schools. Research is undertaken in several schools

4
The term ‘ ‘domain’ri) perhaps requires
A ;
some comment. It simply means the set of all cases the
researcher wishes to generalise to. In a statistical context it is more often labelled as the population
or the universe.

40 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 that are in different phases of developing the curriculum. The results of the
research are expected to be useful for all schools in the country.
e The Department of Traffic organises a research project within eight commu-
nities to discover the impacts of limiting the use of private cars in those areas.
The aim is to detect successful strategies that may then be adopted in other
communities.
¢ An umbrella confederation of action groups in the field of regional planning
has carried out a study into factors influencing the success and failure of
| some well-known action initiatives. The objective is to better fund future
action initiatives.

Some researchers, for instance Yin (1994)° and Gerring (2007), even concep-
tualise case studies exclusively as pars pro toto studies. In this way, however,
an important category of case studies is neglected. The fact that a distinction
between cases as pars pro toto and stand-alone cases so far receives little attention
causes much confusion. It is very common, for instance, to speak about the lack
of external validity or generalisability of a case study. Apparently it is often
overlooked that in ‘stand-alone cases’ the problem of external validity does not
present itself.

2.5 Conclusions

The selection of the case study as a research strategy is primarily guided by the
character of the research question. If it concerns descriptive and/or explanatory
broad questions about a social process in a situation in which we have little
knowledge of the phenomenon, and specifically if we are interested in the ways
several individuals and groups of stakeholders interact with each other and
interpret each other’s behaviour, and the ways in which they cope with prob-
lems, we need to explore one or more cases to clarify the intricate web of social
relations, perceptions, opinions, attitudes,and behaviour. Besides, case studies as
a main research strategy are selected under one or more of the following set of
conditions:

e the impossibility to isolate or simulate (properties that are relevant to) the phenomenon
e the rarity of the phenomenon
e design problems
® the intention to combine research and action.

‘In Yin (2003: 16) this point of view is corrected.

When to Conduct a Case Study? 41

Some general background questions have to be posed and answered:

¢ Are we dealing with an autonomous case study, or is the planned case study part of a
complex of strategies to tackle the same object. If the latter is the case, how does the
case study fit in with respect to the other strategies?
e Are we dealing with basic research or with applied research?
© Do the cases to be selected figure as pars pro toto or as stand-alone cases? Often we want
to generalise to a larger set of cases, but sometimes we are only interested in the specific
cases under study. In this context, the demarcation of the phenomenon to be studied as
well as of the units or cases, the bearers of the phenomenon, is of primary significance.

In the reality of research practice, several non-rational factors may also be

involved in selecting a research strategy. Some proponents consider the case study
as the one and only strategy in social science. They tend to ignore the fact that
many research questions, for instance those with respect to frequency distributions,°
simply cannot be answered by a case study. Some others consider the selection of
a research strategy as almost completely dependent on their own subjective pri-
orities and preferences. One could say that the case study selected them, rather
than the other way around. Indeed, some students do have an inborn preference
for large-scale surveys, others for intensive field studies within one social system,
such as a village, a hospital, an organisation, or a sex club. Actually, in such cases
the researcher’s personal preferences precede formulating the research question.
One cannot object to this state of affairs as long as a relevant research question is
posed and the research strategy is an adequate choice. But, in the harsh reality of
social research, many exceptions to this rule exist! There are also those who regard
the case study as only a second-best choice, when for practical reasons other pre-
ferred strategies are excluded.
The fact that rational arguments do not always dictate the choice of a strategy
disturbs the picture of the research landscape. Sometimes it seems methodologi-
cally sound to organise a survey or an experiment, while for reasons of time and
money a case study approach (or vice versa) is chosen. A researcher is not always
fortunate enough to choose the optimal strategy. Student research proposals often
fall in this category. Often a school class, a hospital ward, a police station or
another local institution is turned into the object of scientific attention, depending
on its vicinity, already existing contacts or the expectation of easier access. Again,
one cannot object to this, as long as relevant research questions are posed and the

*Frequency distribution problems (i.e. ‘how much’ questions) cannot, or can hardly, be solved by
case studies. Doing a case study to answer such questions makes little sense because there is not
much to count, and if there is anything to count, this has little use because the selected cases are
not representative for the intended domain of cases. How many ethnic youngsters drop out of
school because of conflicts with their parents is not a question to answer with a case study. For
some ‘how much’ questions, however, a case study is the only way to get an (approximate) answer.
If we want to know how many youngsters took part in a riot, or how much damage was inflicted
upon property, a case study is the relevant choice of method.

42 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

case study can be expected to produce an answer to such questions. But it is not
uncommon that research questions are posed that lead to uninteresting results and
that the case in question could have been tackled much more effectively by a
nation-wide survey, for example.
There is one more factor that may affect the choice of a research strategy. This
factor is the perceived difficulty of a strategy. Generally, case studies are perceived
as ‘easier’ to bring to a good ending than, for instance, experiments or a survey.
This idea is wrong. Exactly because there is no fixed procedure to follow, and
exactly because the ‘social sensitivity’ of the researcher as well as creativity and
methodological sophistication play a major role, a case study is more difficult to
perform than following a strategy of several phases, each phase more or less dic-
tated by ‘how to do’ handbooks. Flexibility and a potential for quick learning in
the field are the necessary characteristics of the case study researcher.

EXERCISES

2.1 Try to draw a provisional picture of a case study prompted by the broad
question: ‘How does a small group of boys of an ethnic minority develop
into a gang?’ Formulate at least five more precise research questions that
might arise in the course of the study. Do the same for: ‘Why has the
merger process of these schools resulted in conflict whereas in other
schools it progressed harmoniously?’
2.2 (a) Replace the broad research questions of Exercise 2.1 with one of the
more precise research questions. How would this change your research
design? (b) Reformulate your precise questions as hypotheses. Using these
as you starting point for research, how would this affect your design?
2.3 Using the monographs of Exercise 1.3, scrutinise the texts on the intended
domain (of generalisation). Carefully read the arguments used - if any -
about the actual domain of the conclusions. Are they convincing?
2.4 |n section 2.3, the specific conditions for doing a case study include
‘design problems’ and ‘action research’. Both deviate from our ‘cover all’
definition of case studies in Chapter 1. Analyse the respects in which they
differ and the respects in which they, agree with the definition.
2.5 (a) Referring to the first example in Box 2.6, formulate the research
question(s) in a precise way. Do you think the exploratory approach is still
necessary? Or would you be able to document (most) of the research deci-
sions and steps in advance? (b) Although the policy domain is rather
restricted, this case study might produce some results that later on prove to
be valuable for other policy fields as well. Which results, would there be?
2.6 Intended pars pro toto research might fail to reach conclusions that go
beyond the domain of the (few) cases studied. One of the examples (in
Box 2.8) attempts to limit the use of private cars. What factors might
account for a lack of generalisability in this case study?

When to Conduct a Case Study? 43

 KEY TERMS

broad research questions case studies in design research

detailed analysis of social processes case studies in action research
precise research questions autonomous case studies
hypotheses case study as additional strategy
exploration cases as pars pro toto
impossibility to simulate/isolate stand-alone cases
rarity of the phenomenon

44 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 How to Select Cases?

Uncertainty and uneasiness about the number of cases, and about selection
procedures for cases, result in some frequently asked questions (section 3.1). In
section 3.2 we discuss the demarcation of the domain to study. We proceed with
methods to select cases from within the domain. In section 3.3 we illustrate sev-
eral situations in which no selection at all takes place. Random selection is dis-
cussed in section 3.4. Section 3.5 covers selection on practical grounds, and
section 3.6 selection on substantive grounds. The generalisation problem is tack-
led in section 3.7. Finally, in section 3.8, questions and answers are neatly
arranged and some conclusions are drawn.

3.1 Introduction

As in all research, an early and careful demarcation of the domain under study is
essential. We have to determine beforehand the domain (i.e. the set of cases) for
which our conclusions should be valid. Hence, don’t start by picking a case and
postponing the demarcation of the generalisation domain to a later time, but start
by defining the targeted domain, and then select the case(s) accordingly.
Next, the question of how to select cases from the domain arises. Here, three
problems need to be solved:

e How to go about finding cases in research practice?.

e How many cases to select? nee
e If selection is necessary, which criteria should be used?

The first question can be answered relatively simple. That is to say, nothing
much can be said about it. Finding cases can take a lot of time. Problems and
opportunities with detecting cases are not principally different from those with
sampling in extensive research. We mention four possibilities here:

e Drawing a sample from a list or frame covering all units belonging to the domain. If the
domain refers to recognisable social units, such as pupils, or shopping malls, companies,
municipalities, etc., more often than not a frame exists. In applied research, a frame is
often put forward by the client. However, if one wants to select cases with the help of
certain criteria, it is of litle use when these criteria cannot be identified in the frame.
* ‘Reputation’ samples, where experts, key persons, authorities ‘in the field’ are asked to
provide information or possible informants, and with their help the researcher composes
a frame of all eligible cases. Such people may also be useful in establishing contacts in
the field. However, we need to guard against the fact that some informants may be
influenced by these ‘intermediaries’ which may affect their participation in the research.
To avoid this scenario, it is always advisable to consult more than one person or repre-
sentative of an institution.
e Sometimes network or snowball sampling is used where finding one possible case can
lead eventually to a long list of cases. Examples are found in research among small or
specialist groups: drug users, prostitutes, women in higher management jobs, etc.
¢ ‘Open applications’ via mass media can also be used, where cases can be found from
advertising in newspapers, professional group papers, on the television or on the web.

Regarding the second question, we can also be relatively brief. Starting from the
obvious reliability principle ‘the more cases, the better’, we prefer two cases to
one, and three cases to two. This is reliability in the classical sense: a multiple-case
design is considered to be a series of replications of measurement of the same
phenomenon under different, but hopefully irrelevant, conditions. The idea is that
the more cases one studies, the better the chances to separate the general (rele-
vant) from the specific (irrelevant) features of a case. This ideal can only be
attained with a large number of units, where the specifics of each are supposed to
cancel each other out in the long run. The argument is based on straightforward
statistical estimation theory. In doing a multiple-case study, one cannot do more
than take a few steps in this direction in order to obtain at least some information
about the reliability of the results. Leading to the same conclusion, but based on
a different argument, is Yin’s remark:

You may want to settle for two or three literal replications! when the rival theories
are grossly different and the issue at hand does not demand an excessive degree of
certainty. However, if your rival theories have subtle differences or if you want a high
degree of certainty, you may press for five, six or more replications. (Yin 1994: 50)

The reader may understand this argument more or less intuitively. We elaborate
on the use of theories in case study research in Chapter 4.
Often, the number of cases to select is limited by financial restraints. In selecting
cases, the extra value of each new case — in other words, the efficiency of adding
more cases — has to be estimated in advance. The boundary is determined by the
cost/benefit ratio. To summarise, within the limits of our budget we try to replicate
the study of one case by studying as many cases as possible, but depending on

'For Yin (2003: 47), a literal replication implies that in going from one case to another the expec-
tations are the same; the ‘conditions’ are kept identical as much as possible. In theoretical replica-
tion, on the contrary, the conditions are intentionally changed from one case to the other, and the
researcher is interested in the domain of the initial theory — in other words, whether the theory
will stand under varying conditions or whether it needs to be adjusted.

46 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

the variance of the cases and the degree of our knowledge, we sometimes need
more cases than at other times.
The third question — which criteria to use in selecting cases — is far more
complicated, and answering it will take up a major part of the rest of this chapter,
But first we have to discuss the demarcation of the domain to be studied.

3.2 Demarcation of the domain

A careful delineation of the domain of the research question generally precedes

the process of drawing a sample from that domain. It actually is the domain we
want to say something about, not the selected case(s). The domain is the set of all
cases we wish to refer to in our research conclusions about the phenomenon to study
(see Box 3.1).

BOX 3.1

If our study concerns, for instance, a phenomenon on the meso-level (of organi-
sations), do we include ‘all’ organisations? Profit and non-profit organisations?
Companies? Production companies? Production companies within a certain sec-
tor? Only companies with over 100 employees? Specific departments within
such companies? Also, and very importantly, demarcations have to be made
according to place and time. |n actual research practice it is, unfortunately, not
uncommon for a researcher, first, to search for ‘some’ cases to study, and only
afterwards strive for a demarcation of the domain of interest. Sometimes even a
I definition of the domain remains absent.

In testing research, one of the absolute demands put to the researcher is, of
course, the a priori demarcation of the population, that is to say before the actual
case selection and data collecting proceeds. Otherwise one could shrink or expand
the domain at will to get results that are*in accordance with the hypothesis. In
descriptive research as well, the boundaries of the domain are to be defined in
advance.
But in research of an exploratory character the delineation of the population might
be one of the things to be explored. Sometimes, one only has vague ideas about the
boundaries of the targeted domain. One may start, for instance, with defining a
very wide phenomenon, to discover afterwards that it is only partially covered by
the selected cases. The phenomenon the researcher is interested in might be ‘the
room for public policy and its determining factors’. We may end up with the
description and explanation of youth welfare policy in a certain nation during a
certain period. Obviously, there is a long way to go back from the empirical results

How to Select Cases? 47

of a handful of cases to the very broadly worded phenomenon. The domain is
gradually delineated through successive steps, such as selecting a field, a country
and a period. The originally targeted domain is only partially covered.
Furthermore, the role of domain demarcation is different in basic research com-
pared to applied research. In basic research, the researcher is principally at liberty
to restrict or enlarge the domain. Whether this liberty is real is another matter.
Whatever the design may be, the restriction or widening of the phenomenon itself,
or the domain of the phenomenon, falls within the authority and freedom of the
researcher (see Box 3.2). In applied research, however, the domain of targeted
units is generally determined by the client who orders and finances the research
project, and it is sharply demarcated. The researcher is not free to change the
boundaries of the target set at will. Yet, even when, initially, the domain is sharply
demarcated, its boundaries may become the object of negotiation between the
researcher and the client in dealing with the problem of sampling. We illustrate
this with an example from empirical practice (see Box 3.3).

BOX 3.2

In a basic research project on the topic of ‘bullying’ in three school classes, in

which pupils are seen as the ‘physical units’ involved (better would be pairs of
pupils), it is possible for the researcher to restrict the phenomenon of ‘bullying’
to one of its specific forms, or to widen it to all other forms of non-adjusted or
harmful social behaviour, in order to arrive at a higher level theory. In the same
vein, (s]he may restrict the study of bullying behaviour to interacting boys, or to
girls, or to a specific type of school or age category. It may be desirable, for
instance, to start with homogeneous groups in one specific context, in order not
to jump higher than one’s capacities allow.

BOK

In a study about how schools deal with perceptions and interests of different
groups of stakeholders (parents, teachers, pupils), for instance about the balance
between education in school and education at home, the question may arise
which schools, and how many, should be selected in a case study. The original
domain to study is defined as all primary and secondary schools in a country. Let
us assume that, financially, as well as from an organisational point of view, room
exists for a maximum of five or six cases. Arguments may run as follows: one has
to select primary schools as well as secondary schools of different types. Also,
the denomination of a school might be important because, for instance, protes-
tant/Calvinist schools might be opposed to an emphasis on the educational

48 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

L influence of the school as compared to the family’s influence. Also, one has
to take the socio-economic composition of the school population into account.
A preliminary conclusion might be that if we wished to represent each combina-
tion of different characteristics by one school in our sample of schools, we might
already need more than 10 or even more than 20 schools in our study. A design
such as this is only possible if the case study budget for each school is strictly
limited, and this implies that the research design is gradually to be more survey-
like than a case study. Alternatively, we could select only a few cells from the
cross-tabulation, and represent one or two schools in each of these cells. The
client, who intends to cover ‘the complete educational system’, is probably
opposed to this latter choice.
One can conclude that at the start of the project prolonged negotiations are
needed to demarcate the target population. It is simply not possible to cover,
within the context of a real (multiple-) case study, all variants of schools, even
if we represented each cell by only one school (and that would be useless
because we would not be able to interpret differences between schools in a reli-
able way). The population has to be restricted from the beginning (e.g. to only
public secondary schools).
Next, some cases may be selected from this layer, or one decides to conduct
a survey first in order to supply some ‘in width’ knowledge. If we follow the first
approach, and if almost all schools produce the same results, then we are lucky
in a certain sense: the stratification variables do not seem to be relevant, and we
have more or less convincing results ‘for all public secondary schools in this
country’. If, however, and more probably, different results are produced, it will
be very difficult to interpret these differences. By the level of education? By
denominational character? By socio-economic differences? Even if not one, but
several schools ‘per cell’ are included in the design, the only results we may
hope for depend on exploratory interpretations; we have to add the inevitable
‘more research is necessary’ to the conclusions.
Furthermore, in policy research, demarcation of the domain might have some
special implications. As a policy measure generally will not be put into practice
for several years to come, the domain.of.units as itwill be in the future seems to
be more relevant than the domain of the same units as they are now. Regrettably,
we cannot, of course, draw a sample from a domain-yetto-come, but we can
implement this idea by taking a couple of ‘vanguard’ units, units that are more
advanced or modern than others. It is difficult to say whether we are dealing
here with a population (i.e. domain) or a sampling problem. It is clear, however,
that with respect to a future policy to be implemented in a heterogeneous domain
of cases, selecting some vanguard organisations or social systems in general
(e.g. schools, urban neighbourhoods) is more appropriate than selecting some
‘retarded’ or backward social systems.

How to Select Cases? 49

 In the following paragraphs, we discuss several alternative procedures for
selecting cases.

3.3 No selection at all

If a domain is small, we do not select cases, but we may try to include all cases that
constitute the targeted domain. In applied (policy) research this domain may be
small: the public hospitals in this city; the departments in this organisation. It may
even consist of only one case. But if there are more, we will probably do everything
in our power to include all cases in our study, finances allowing. Goetz and
LeCompte (1984) call this situation ‘comprehensive sampling’. Evidently, our task
is to formulate policy advice for the whole domain, and the researcher cannot
permit him/herself to leave four cases out, when, for instance, the. complete
domain consists of six cases. Should it be impossible to study all six cases inten-
sively, we may choose between several alternatives: doing a pilot study on, say, two
cases in order to study the rest in a (to be hoped for) follow-up project, or study-
ing all six, some of them more intensively than others. A dilemma like this will often
lead to intensive and time-consuming, but mutually enlightening, negotiations
between researcher and client.
Quite another situation exists when the domain is large (at least too large to
include all elements in our study), but we experience so much trouble in finding
a case, that if we find one, we are only too glad to include it in our sample.
Inaccessibility of the domain may lead to a restriction of a project to one or two
cases. A lack of co-operation is not the only cause for a large domain resulting in
few available cases. On the meso-level, this situation often occurs in premature
evaluation research, for instance with educational innovations. The government is
so keen on having a new policy evaluated that researchers have great difficulty in
finding cases with enough experience. A new policy needs time for implementa-
tion. In other words, fresh cases are often not informative enough! Should one
nevertheless wish to do research in an introductory period, perhaps only one hos-
pital or other institution is available. Here, the domain is large, but only very few
cases are available, or we have to wait a long time before the research can be
undertaken.
Turning to basic research, Yin (2003: 42) mentions some specific situations
where, evidently, a case study might be restricted to only one case:

¢ The critical case where studying one case may be decisive with respect to the choice
between rival theories (see section 3.6).
¢ The unique case, for example patients with a very rare injury or disorder, or murderers
of presidents. Any single case found is worth documenting and analysing because of
its rarity.

50 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

¢ The representative or typical case where a rather homogeneous domain of cases indicates
that selecting one or the other case is irrelevant. The collected information is interpreted
as valid for all of the cases. It goes without saying that this presupposes knowledge
about the composition of the domain.
¢ The revelatory case. This situation occurs when, by pure luck or accident, the
researcher has access to a group, situation or person that has not been studied before.
Sometimes by accident, for instance when a researcher is called upon to act as a
member of a jury, or when (s)he gets involved in a hostage affair. Other examples
involve a strike or a heroin-taking prostitute. It is told that the famous German physi-
cian Ernst Mach he had a stroke during a train trip. He used this situation to system-
atically study which movements he still was able to make, and which not. He observed
himself as a black box with his will as input and movements as output. The phenom-
enon is often rather common, but it is apparently very difficult to gain access to a
case.
e The longitudinal case studies where for one unit or case a series of measurements on a
time scale is available.

With respect to these situations, in selecting a case to be studied no criterion is

intentionally applied; each case is, in principle, fitting and is gratefully accepted.
The intensive study of one single case may function as an eye-opener, as a highway
to new scientific knowledge about a large group of phenomena. The researcher
will seize every opportunity with both hands.

3.4 Random selection

In extensive research (in other words, in a survey), the usual practice is random
sampling. However, statistical induction, the ‘sample-to-population logic’, is
not applicable if it comes to generalising from case(s) to domain in intensive
research. The number of studied cases is far too small. Even if we selected, for
example, ten cases, the sample would be too small to reliably estimate popula-
tion parameters, let alone if our case study is restricted to one case or a handful
of cases. Parameter estimations wil! be located in intervals that are so wide that
they are almost non-informative. Besides, a random sample of, say, three cases
can be far off the mark with respect to Some important variable. In fact, a ran-
dom sample may be worse than any other sample, considering the small number
of cases. Second, random selection presupposes that, for all units or cases in the
domain, a frame from which to sample exists. Often, no such frame is available,
for example homosexuals, owners of a weekend or holiday house, organisations
that employed an interim manager in a certain year. Consequently, random
selection is not an important criterion in case study research. It may, however,
be used additionally, after having composed, on other grounds, a list of eligible
cases.

How to Select Cases? 51

 3.5 Pragmatic grounds

Frequently, rather trivial criteria, such as proximity to the researcher's univer-

sity, personal interest and involvement, incidental contacts or the researcher's
network, determine which cases will be included in the research project. In
American literature the expression ‘convenience sample’ is used. A pragmatic
solution for the sampling problem is the selection of all cases that satisfy a
certain simple objective criterion, for instance all cases located within a radius
of a 15-minute car journey from the research institute, or the selection of the
maximum number of cases within the research budget. If the domain con-
cerns individuals (where sometimes relatively large groups are involved),
quota sampling is applied. This implies the construction of certain categories
or strata that are subsequently filled. Phrased more generally, decisive selec-
tion factors are distance, time and money. Sometimes cases are selected that
are in the public eye or, more often, cases that get less public attention.
Evidently, criteria such as these are additional, in the sense that they may
help to select cases out of a larger group of eligible cases that satisfy more
substantive criteria. Pragmatic criteria are often combined with substantive
criteria.
We usually apply pragmatic criteria in basic research. This is less obvious in
policy research, in which the domain of cases is often, as said before, prescribed by
the client. Probably, additional pragmatic criteria will be applied only in dealing
with a large and homogeneous domain.

3.6 Substantive criteria

Finally, we arrive at those selection criteria that relate to substantive properties of

the cases themselves. Foremost, it is important to keep in mind two general prin-
ciples, whichever special criteria are used. First, we should look for informative
cases, that is cases that are expected to represent the phenomenon under study
quite clearly. In evaluation research, with respect to an innovation, we only
include cases in which the innovation has been implemented for a certain period —
long enough for the expected effects to materialise. Some prior knowledge is
assumed, of course. Second, we prefer — independent of the use of other criteria —
representative cases, that is cases occupying a modal position on putative relevant
variables. Or, if a specific causal relationship is the point of departure for selecting
a case, we select a case that does not deviate from the regression line or, rather,
select cases that occupy different positions along the regression line (but that deviate
little from that line!). The expressions ‘typical cases’ and ‘representative cases’ are
also used.

52 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 Sometimes these criteria are sufficient to select some cases or perhaps only one
case. In this way, the Lynds

selected a single city to be as representable as possible for American life. Specifically,

they were looking for a city with: 1) a temperate climate; 2) a sufficiently rapid rate
of growth; 3) an industrial culture; 4) the absence of dominance of the city’s industry
by a single plant; 5) a substantial local artistic life; and 6) the absence of any outstand-
ing peculiarities or acute local problems which would mark the city off from the
midchannel sort of American community.

After examining a number of options, the Lynds decided that Muncie, Indiana, was
more representative than other midsized cities in America, thus qualifying it as a
typical case. (Gerring, 2007: 92)

Preceding the actual sampling process one may use a ‘sampling plan’, as applied
in extensive research, for instance aimed at stratification based on some relevant
variables. Sometimes the expression ‘dimensional sampling’ is used. It is often
applied in actual research practice, especially in the frame of evaluation research.
Here it is assumed that we have some knowledge about an applicable theory and
about the case(s), which, however, isn't always present. A sampling plan will surely
be used if we start from precise questions or hypotheses. If we have a broad initial
research question, it is possible, though not necessary, that, starting from a more or
less fortunately chosen case, during the process of data collection we decide which
other cases to include in the sample, depending on the results thus far obtained.
There is no prior sampling plan: the selection of each next case depends on our
interpretation of the results of the cases already studied. This procedure, known as
‘theoretical sampling’, is advocated by Glaser and Strauss (1967).* The expres-
sions ‘opportunistic sample’ or ‘ad hoc sample’ are used as well. In an approach
such as this, data collection, interpretation and analysis occur more or less simul-
taneously. During the process it is decided what additional data are desired and
where such data are to be found. In this way, for instance, we may develop the
expectation that with cases belonging to a slightly different category the results
thus far obtained will not apply. We are studying, for instance, the quality of serv-
ices delivered to the public by a heterogeneous group of institutions. Thus far we
only included banks and travel agencies in our sample. The expectation emerges
that adding local tourist information desks and some community-level agencies to
our sample might change research results. With ‘theoretical sampling’ it is not clear
beforehand when sampling comes to an end and, consequently, how many cases
will be involved in the study. As stated before, in research practice, usually financial

2In research literature (Goetz & LeCompte 1984; Miles & Huberman 1994; Kuzel 1999; Patton
2002), we come across several labels for selection on theoretical grounds. Terms used are: ‘theory-
based cases’, ‘critical cases’, ‘confirming’ and ‘disconfirming’ cases. The term ‘theory-based cases’
means that we select cases from which we expect an illustration of a theory. The word ‘theory’
here is mostly used for a ‘construct’, such as ‘image building’ or ‘awareness context’.

How to Select Cases? 53

and practical considerations determine when and where to stop sampling. In texts
on the methodology of theoretical sampling, the principle of ‘saturation’ of the
sample is advocated. This principle indicates an approaching end to sampling if we
discover that new cases no longer add information or that the cost/benefit ratio is
going to be negative in continuing sampling. However, this principle is only appli-
cable with domains counting a relatively large number of relatively cheap cases
(e.g. individual persons to be subjected to an in-depth interview). The principle of
saturation can be applied to answer the question whether, after having interviewed
25 people, it is useful to add another ten interviews. This question does not apply
if we consider, after having included and studied three organisations in intensive
research, whether to include a fourth or fifth organisation. Evidently, almost any
fourth organisation will add new dimensions to our results. Whether we use a prior
sampling plan or apply the ‘saturation’ approach depends on the character of the
research question, and therefore on the state of our prior knowledge.
A said before, frequency of occurrence together with pragmatic criteria may be
a sufficient base in selecting cases. Often, however, additional substantive, that is
to say theory-related considerations, are applied. This is especially the case in deal-
ing with one or more clearly defined central causal relations, such as in evaluation
research. Several alternatives for case selection are available. They are discussed in
the sections below.

3.6.1 Homogeneous on the independent variable(s)

In speaking about selection on one or more ‘independent variables’ (variables that
are expected to influence the process), this label stands for ‘causes’ in a broad
sense: contextual characteristics, background variables, and conditions.
If the model or the theory is still new, and has not yet been submitted to inten-
sive testing, it is generally advisable to minimise between cases-variance.*The idea
is to look for some ‘modal instances’ of the phenomenon. The argument runs: let’s
first have a look whether a common model is possible for a reasonably homogene-
ous set of frequently occurring cases. An exclusive orientation on the frequency of
occurrence can even be the deciding criterion in selecting cases, especially when
we know very little about the effects under different conditions.

*The distinction between minimising and maximising variance was introduced by Glaser and
Strauss (1967: Chapter 3). Curiously, these authors do not indicate which variables are to be used
as criteria for minimising or maximising. Glaser and Strauss avoid the labels ‘dependent’ and ‘inde-
pendent variables’, they do not use the word ‘variables’ at all. Instead, they unfortunately use the
expressions ‘categories’ and their ‘characteristics’ without defining these things explicitly. The
resulting vagueness and terminological confusion has cost the scientific community a lot of time,
but we won’t repeat this debate here. In covering the topic of selection principles for case studies,
this distinction is very important. So far in the literature, the distinction between independent and
dependent variables has not been made in this context. Taking the long history of ‘qualitative
research’ into consideration, this is understandable. But surely, in applied research, where effects
of policy interventions are studied, it cannot be omitted or neglected.

54 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 Minimising variance in fact means that an initial study done on one case is
replicated with other cases from which we expect comparable results. Yin (1994)
calls this literal replication. It is a sensible first option if we are not yet knowledge-
able in the field. However, some methodologists view this approach as inferior. It
is even made suspect by using the label ‘case contamination’ (see Appendix 4). If
cases are very comparable or even dependent or related, knowledge based on these
cases is less respectable, less informative (Swanborn 1996a). It is of course true
that this approach is not a very bold one; it is rather modest indeed. But it is not
an inferior strategy. On the contrary, it has to be recommended under the circum-
stances discussed above. Nevertheless, we should be aware of its limitations.
To start with, it is a modest approach in the sense that if four cases are drawn
from the same context, nothing can be said about the role of that context, because
it doesn’t vary. A case study including four departments of the same directorate
can never, with certainty, explain results in terms of characteristics of that directo-
rate. In other directorates, results could be just the same. It is possible as well that
our tentative causal conclusions within this homogeneous subset are conditional
upon the context. Seemingly causal relations are spurious: the context is the com-
mon cause (but cannot as such be identified empirically because it does not vary).
This context may have a temporal, a spatial or a social-network character. A next
step would be, of course, to study departments taken from other directorates.
One should keep in mind that selecting extra cases from a homogeneous subset
is a cautionary strategy, but the law of diminishing returns plays its role: adding
another case gradually adds fewer new elements to our knowledge. The ‘x-th’ rep-
lication under exactly comparable conditions has a very small chance of being
refuted if the model is not refuted after studying all foregoing cases. Each added
case is less informative. A statistician would express this in terms of degrees of free-
dom: as cases are dependent, the number of degrees of freedom (see Chapter 5) is
no greater than one would superficially think. The real significance of ‘contamina-
tion’ is that the more our cases are ‘contaminated’, the less informative they are. On
the one hand, we need to be aware of this and on the other hand, it inspires a next
step in selecting cases: the introduction of variance on one or more of the independ-
ent variables; selecting another cohort; or selecting another way of studying the limits
of our temporary model or theory. Replications urider varying conditions have a
smaller chance of producing the same restIt} and therefore are more informative and
methodologically more interesting. Replication under simultaneously varying condi-
tions is, however, less useful because deviating results are hard to interpret. The
conclusion is a strategy of ‘small steps’. In replication we vary only one condition at
the same time.

3.6.2 Heterogeneous on the independent variable(s)

The reverse strategy is the selection of cases that largely differ on the independent
variables. Which circumstances would prompt this approach? When, by means of

How to Select Cases? 55

an exploratory study of some comparable cases, we arrive at a common model for
all cases studied, perhaps the time is ripe to test the extent of the model or its
sensitivity to varying parameters of the context? We select cases that contrast on
some relevant independent variables, cases that clearly differ from the ones chosen
earlier, Sometimes the expression ‘polar types’ is even used. Starting with the most
frequent categories of the independent variable(s) may be wise. One may start
with a simple cross-tabulation (e.g., a 2 x 3 table) of some of these variables, and
select an informative representative case for each cell of the table. It is not neces-
sary to represent all categories of a relevant independent variable if some of its
categories occur very infrequently. Relevant independent variables in a study on
organisations may be, for instance, economic sectors (primary, secondary, tertiary
or other) and size of workforce. Replications in other communities, in another
period, with other circumstances can fall under this heading as well. The argument
is not of a statistical nature, but it fits an exploratory approach: we want to have
some idea about the fit of the model under alternating conditions. In studying
aspects of an organisational process in hospitals, assuming we include four cases in
the study, it would be possible, for instance, to include two large and two small
hospitals. The argument for a strategy such as this does not refer to the usual
stratification argument, that is that it would enable us to generalise separately to
large as well as to small hospitals. The numbers do not allow that. The argument
is more modest: in our exploration we wish to bring some variance on putative
important properties in order to get an impression — not much more than that —
about the range of our conclusions.
If results prove to be stable under varying conditions of that dimension, the
dimension obviously seems to be irrelevant. This constitutes no objection to the
procedure. On the other hand, it is of course conceivable that some relevant
dimension remains hidden.
In a later phase of the study, if a model is relatively well fixed and if we are able
to predict when it will be verified and under which conditions it will be refuted,
we may test whether, according to the theory, contradictory, or deviating, results
appear. Still another procedure consists of selecting cases (at least three) that rep-
resent different positions on an ordinal independent variable. If these cases, after
data-collection and analysis, show monotonously increasing scores? on the depend-
ent variables, our conclusion with respect to the effects of the independent variable
is considerably strengthened.
Problematic to these approaches is that an intelligent choice is only possible on the
basis of knowledge we generally don’t have. The model or the theory has not yet been
formulated. The solution to this typically methodological problem is using a ‘boot-
strap’ approach, in which, starting from weak subjective knowledge, a first effort is

‘Monotonously increasing means that if case A scores higher on an independent variable than
case B, its score on the dependent variable should always be higher than, or the same as, the score
of case B.

56 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

made, and thereafter other steps, one by one (or a step backwards is done), etc. In
short, this implies exploration, also with respect to the selection of the next case.
Although all of these approaches seem to be rather obvious, much can be
improved with respect to current research practice. Sometimes, variables are
quite automatically regarded as the relevant ones. Replacing this automatism by
a little more reflection, and the use of available actual expertise about the subject,
from the field as well as from science, we may obtain a more appropriate choice
of independent variables. We may start with those variables everyone agrees on to
be important and then move on to the variables whose effects the experts disagree
about. Consulting experts is the best way to detect variables that effect contrasting
and therefore interesting results, and that clarify the background of such effects —
the determining causal processes. Naive exploration of material may be partly
replaced by testing assumptions.

3.6.3 Selection on the dependent variable(s)

In speaking about selection on dependent variable(s), the latter concept represents
‘consequences’: central characteristics of the process and positive or negative effects.
Let’s have a look at several possible situations. Most of the practical solutions
restrict the range on the dependent variable(s) in selecting cases.
The first method, very popular in evaluation research, consists in selecting ‘suc-
cess stories’ or ‘best practices’. However, without variance of the dependent vari-
able this design is useless from the point of view of causal analysis. It is not known
whether perhaps the same conditions that characterise success stories would be
present in the less successful cases as well. A control group (based on random
selection) or comparison group (comparable, but not randomly selected) is absent.
In no way can insight be gained into the factors that determine why school leavers
get a job, if we restrict ourselves to the pupils who actually do find a job. We can-
not explain variance on a variable that doesn’t vary. We cannot aim for more than
some tentative ideas.
Close to the first method is a second method: restriction of range on the depend-
ent variable. Figure 3.1 shows the dangers with respect to a causal conclusion
implied by this approach. In this figure (adapted from King, Keohane & Verba
1994: 131), the correlation between the number of courses taken and the earned
income in the first job is portrayed. Roughly, with one additional course one gains
an additional $10,000. The regression line shifts considerably, however, if we
restrict our study to people who earn at least $100,000. Now, one additional course
results in only $5,000 more, hence the causal effect is strongly underestimated.
Examples of false conclusions are not always as obvious as this. Selection may
take place by restricting oneself to one side of a variable that is correlated with the
dependent variable: the same biased results may be expected. Such a bias may
result from self-selection. If we study the relation between academic performance
and labour market success, and we would depend on self-selection of people, it is
to be expected that especially people with a good job and good earnings volunteer

How to Select Cases? 57

 8

12 4 ° pie
— 8 gece i
8 114
S
act 8:
3
So es
:
“3
5
es
ee rae - :
£ 3
E°
© Oo

oO
£
= :

0 1 2 3 4 5
X (number of accounting courses)

Figure 3.1 Bias by selection on the dependent variable

as respondents. The result is comparable to the situation portrayed in Figure 3.1.

Self-selection may not be the only factor at the basis of such bias. Successful peo-
ple can be detected more easily, whereas unsuccessful people gradually disappear
from sight and are liable not to be included in a sample. Almost any inventory of
ex-students or ex-whatever, composed by the enthusiastic collaboration of some
‘networkers’, is biased in this sense. The accessible domain is already biased. This
often happens in retrospective research on nations or organisations as well as on
people: units have disappeared or died or cannot be reached anymore, in whatever
way. Far better would be prospective research, in which one starts with a sample
from the original domain, and where the process to be studied is going to be con-
tinuously monitored. The example of (extensive) designs in health research on the
relation between smoking and lung cancer is illuminating. Retrospective studies
with persons above a certain age only deal with survivors and are consequently
biased. Prospective research, starting from school age, is much better, but takes
many years. Restriction of range at one side of the dependent variable endangers
our conclusions and should flatly be avoided wherever possible. Retrospective and
prospective research is more fully treated in section 3.6.7.
A third selection procedure lies at hand: restriction of range to groups or cases
that are extreme on both sides of the set of values of the dependent variable. This
is not too far-fetched. Often selection on the dependent variables comes down to
the selection of some success cases (‘best practice’) as well as some ‘failure’ cases.
In other words, maximising the variance. Sometimes even in calls for proposals
in policy research it is demanded that the design contains some cases that show
good practice and other cases showing bad practice. Yet enough reasons exist as

58 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

to why we should be very reticent with such designs here as well. Selection in
this way might not lead to an underestimation of the causal effect, but it is
impossible to reach conclusions with respect to differential effects of several
causes, which is the aim of much causal research. The crux of the matter is the
‘confounding’ of independent variables. Blalock (1964) already showed the
serious disadvantage of selecting on the dependent variable. In setting apart
successful cases and failure cases, one actually constructs two sets that are con-
trasting on several independent variables simultaneously. The result is that causes
cannot be disentangled; they are hopelessly ‘confounded’. At best we describe, on
the one hand, situations in which a number of factors are positive, and on the
other hand, a situation in which the same factors are all negative. But there is
no way to gain insight into the relative strengths of each of these independent
variables, and into their correlations and interactions. Besides, the regression
effect might play a role. We mostly select cases according to the results of meas-
urement at one moment, and we cannot be sure that they are that stable and that
selection at another moment would have produced the same results. A comfort
might perhaps be that with measurement error and instability present, it is
to be expected that the selected extreme groups actually are less extreme than
we expected them to be.
If we could base our selection on the mean of scores from several points on a
time scale, or on summative scores over several dependent variables, we could
perhaps more or less avoid the regression effect. But in performing an evaluation
of recently implemented social experiments, we generally are glad when at least
one effect-measurement can take place.
The objections against selection on dependent variables are in fact grave. In
general this procedure has to be advised against. At most, we could think of it as a
first gross search for possible causes. But even then it would be more efficient — for
instance, if we studied only four cases — to immediately introduce some contrast
on those independent variables that are deemed most important. Even if we can
avoid the regression effect, these procedures are not efficient because we cannot
get hold of the relative weights of several causes.
A fine-tuning of the procedure may, however, lead to a certain acceptability. If
several dependent variables are measured and we decide to select those cases that
score high on all dependent variables, the’régression effect will partly be excluded.
There remains the confounding effect. It can partly be avoided, after selection on
the dependent variable(s), in complementing the procedure by selecting contrast-
ing cases on one or two important independent variables. In this way, at least the
effects of these independent variables are more or less controlled. Recently, more
methodological advancements have been made in the field of matched-pairs selec-
tion (Imai, King & Nall 2008). As these are highly sophisticated in their statistical
properties, we do not discuss them here. More improvements in specific situa-
tions are conceivable, improvements that condition and perhaps mitigate the
recommendations laid out.

How to Select Cases? 59

 The reader might wonder whether a discussion of statistical matters is appropriate
in a book on case studies. Actually, it is. We have no intention at all to turn (especially
qualitative) researchers into statisticians. But while arguments of a statistical
nature mostly remain hidden in a report of a seemingly simple sample selection pro-
cedure, they may be very real and grossly bias results. That’s why at least awareness
and caution in this respect are needed.

3.6.4 Selection on the causal relationship

Suppose that from a survey or from documentary sources a correlation between
some clearly defined variables emerges, and a causal interpretation presents itself.
We are eager to know more about the range of the domain, that is we want to
know more about the conditions that play a role, and we want to know more
about the causal mechanisms. Here, with a bivariate situation, one might portray
the correlation and contrast some cases that lie on the regression line with some
other cases that are ‘deviant’. The aim is to detect conditions that might be in
favour of (or even necessary) for the relation between the two central variables,
and conditions that might constitute a handicap. In a multivariate situation, one
might calculate the general regression formula as well as the residuals for each
case. Finally, one might select cases with a very small residual as well as cases with
a larger residual.
Selection on the basis of a causal relationship takes a special format in the
so-called selection of deviant cases. If it is found that a lot of cases fit a common
model, that is to say that a theory is found but that it turns out that there is one
stubborn exception to the rule, it is time to perform a ‘deviant case study’. A famous
example is Lipset, Trow and Coleman’s exploratory study of the International
Typographical Union (1956) (see Box 3.4).

BOX 3.4 The ITU case®

Michel’s Iron Law of Oligarchy states that all forms of organisations will eventu-
ally develop into oligarchies. As organisations increase in size, the bureaucracy
will grow as well, and leaders of bureaucracies will use their position to increase
and entrench their power. Lipset et al.’s book is a case study of one particular
organisation, the International Typographical Union, an organisation that seem-
ingly disproved Michel’s Iron Law. The exception was explained by the fact that
the ITU was founded by a group of local unions, valuing their autonomy. The

°Adapted from en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Democracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-

ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).

60 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 existence of factions within the democratic structure and elections within the
union prevented the leaders from becoming corrupt, as each faction was willing
to expose the wrongdoings of another. They also pointed out that similarity in
background (most of the leaders coming from middle class) further encouraged
democratic decision-making processes. The authors tested Michel's theory in the
first place, and being confronted with a falsifying instance of the theory, they
explored their case in search of an explanation, in this case adding some new
elements (conditions) to Michel’s theory. Having learned from the Festinger et al.
(1956) example (see Box 2.3), one could also remark that Lipset et al. found a
way to cope with their cognitive dissonance ... which is not always bad at alll

Deviancy refers to a causal relationship, not to the position of a unit relative to

its position on a variable. Deviancy is always relative to a theory or general model.
Perhaps after a deviant case project, the theory can be adjusted and the selected
case is — after all — not deviant any more. Many deviant case analyses result in the
addition of other variables to a theory (‘conditioning the theory’), or in the adjust-
ment of the form of the relation (say from linear to curvilinear). Sometimes it is
shown — after a re-operationalisation or recoding of one or more crucial variables —
that the case was not a deviant one after all (but be careful with this type of
welcome result!).
This approach is adequate at the end of a programme cycle. Careful condi-
tioning of a theory could, in principle, be the result of an analysis like this, as well
as designing a deeper theory (covering more cases) that includes the non-fitting
cases too.

3.6.5 Selection on developmental phases

Still another possible selection strategy is selecting cases that represent different
stages or phases of a developmental process. One often encounters this approach
with one of the most popular applications of case studies: research into the factors
that facilitate or hinder the implementation of an innovation. As with most inno-
vations, a complete implementation ofthe trajectory takes several years. Only a
restricted period is available for research, so there is an obvious need to select
cases accordingly. After the selection of sub-populations on the basis of temporal
points, or cohorts, a subsequent random selection of cases, or one of the above-
mentioned principles of selection on the independent variables, may follow.
Selection on the dependent variables is not applicable because most cases have
not yet reached the final stage. Selection on developmental phases can be very
efficient, but it is based on the partly untestable assumption that cases from dif-
ferent cohorts are comparable. Therefore, in practice, researchers often struggle
with ambiguity of interpretations.

How to Select Cases? 61

 3.6.6 Selection of critical cases

The practice of ‘selecting a critical case’ has to be posited in the context of testing
a causal proposition within a well-articulated theory. As we will see later on, this
is a rather exceptional use of case studies. A beautiful example is the study of a
girl who from her birth till the age of 13 spent her life in almost complete social
isolation. She became as a test case for the competing language development
theories of Noam Chomsky and Erik Lenneberg. At the same time, this is an example
of a ‘revelatory case’.
In its original format (often labelled ‘crucial case’), it refers to a deterministic
proposition that can be corroborated or falsified by studying one case. This is a
rather academic concept. To say the least, almost always we struggle with measure-
ment errors in the study of social life, a fact that makes research results in deter-
ministic terms highly improbable.
In a mitigated format, reference is sometimes made to the so-called. most likely
and least likely case selection. Here, we do not assume a deterministic relationship,
but allow for the more ‘normal’ situation in which a series of factors is responsible
for the effect Y. In the ‘most likely’ approach, in testing an X/Y relationship, a case is
selected that represents as many factors (X,, X;, ... X,) as possible that may cause
Y, except the factor of interest to the researcher, namely X. If the result is non-Y
(the most likely result to expect would be Y), there is fairly strong evidence that
the only remaining factor, X, is causative. In the ‘least likely’ approach, in testing a
X/Y relationship, a case is selected where all other possible factors that might cause
Y are absent, but X is present. The argument is that if in this least likely situation
the effect Y presents itself, the only factor that may cause it is X (and Y will cer-
tainly be manifest in a situation where other factors that contribute to Y are
present). In Popperian terms this refers to a ‘risky prediction’, and risky predictions
are the things upon which progress in science is based (Popper 1963).
Other approaches in a testing frame relate to techniques such as those applied
in experiments, for example using pairs or small sets of cases that are comparable
on many variables but that contrast on the variable of central interest, commonly
known as matching techniques. In the political sciences, where theories as well as
comparable scores of nation-states on many (relatively hard) variables are available
in data banks, testing methods such as these are practised.
Still, in many of these research projects, a result in terms of ‘this confirms’ or ‘this
disconfirms’ a theory is to be regarded as preliminary. Too many non-measured factors
may affect results. However, researching cases along these lines may be very worth-
while in detecting or questioning possible causal links or alternative explanations.
But here we are, exploring again... In Chapter 4 we will tackle this topic again.

3.6.7 Prospective and retrospective research

The subject of prospective and retrospective research designs is often treated
within the context of causal analysis, when a real experiment is not feasible, for

62 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

instance because the causal process needs a very long period, or when independent
variables cannot be manipulated by the experimenter. Actually, we made some
references to it already in sections 3.6.1-3.6.4, especially where we commented
on combining success and failure cases in a project. It is useful to provide a link
between case studies and these (quasi-) experimental designs. Using retrospective
or prospective designs is also relevant for the methodology of case studies, as
Box 3.5 at the end of this section will show.
Samples may be drawn at random, not at random or only partly at random, but
control of the ‘experimental conditions’ is much more difficult than it is under
laboratory conditions. In both designs, samples are drawn of groups that differ on
one of the essential variables.
In a prospective design, the presumed causal impact has not yet taken place: we
‘look into the future’; a prospective project has to be carried out. In prospective
research about the impact of one supposedly causal variable, the researcher
selects cases contrasting on the independent variable. One is relatively free to
choose design and data collection according to his/her own ideas, but if the time
span between cause and effect is large, a prospective research project is not fea-
sible. In fact, if you wish to determine the long-term effects of smoking at an early
age, you cannot wait till all people in your sample of youngsters have reached the
age of 80 (or have died). A more fortunate example is studying the relations
between social background, education and choice of career, and one may follow
a group of youngsters from contrasting social backgrounds in their development
at school and into their professional careers (for as long as your research interests
and funding allow!).
In a retrospective design, the impact on the dependent variable(s) has already
taken place: we look ‘backwards’. Now there are two possibilities: to select on the
independent variable (called a ‘retrospective cohort’ approach) or to select on the
dependent variable (called a ‘case/control’ approach). In order to apply a cohort
approach, data from the past should be available, for instance from documentary
sources.
A ‘cohort’ approach is an efficient design if the population distribution on the
independent variable is very skewed. If you wished to carry out research on the
relationship between working in coalmines and lung éancer, in using the case/control
approach you would identify only a smalk‘number of ex-miners in your samples.
This would be a very inefficient design. In the ‘cohort’ approach one is able to
select the sample from two equal groups, one of young people who went on to be
coalminers, and one from the same population who took other professions.
Contrarily, a ‘cohort’ approach is very inefficient when the distribution on the
dependent variable is very skewed. If one desired to study the impact of religion
on suicide, one would need very large numbers to draw conclusions with a certain
level of reliability because very few people commit suicide. It seems more sensible
to start with a sample of people who committed suicide, and compare this sample
to a comparable group of people who did not attempt suicide. A ‘case/control
approach would be more appropriate.

How to Select Cases? 63

 The ‘cohort’ approach has other disadvantages:

¢ The sample mortality, as a consequence of death, removals, those no longer willing to

participate, etc., may be large, and accumulates the longer the research continues. The
problem is that this mortality may be related to the independent variable.
¢ The researcher is likely to be biased if (s)he is acquainted with the subjects’ score on the
independent variable, especially if (s)he has to attribute in-between cases to one or the other
group. If the researcher does not know the score on the independent variable, the
research project is called a ‘blind’ experiment. If researchers and subjects do not know
their score on the independent variable(s), it is called a double-blind experiment.
Literature on this topic is abundant in the health sciences and a standard text on
methodology is Cook and Campbell (1979).

A ‘case/control’ research project into the characteristics of people who died

from the Mexican swine flue epidemic in 2009 compared to people who were
infected but did not die could probably be carried out by studying a number of
characteristics of 50 people who died (the ‘cases’), and 200 comparable infected
persons who did not die (the ‘controls’). Cases and controls are selected so that
they can be compared to variables that are assumed to be correlated with the
cause of the illness (‘risk factors’ such as air flight passenger, age, general health
factors, time and duration of exposure, etc.). A number of about 250 persons
would do, while with a ‘cohort’ approach (say, a sample of all air flight passengers
coming from Mexico in 2009) one would be obliged to start with tens of thou-
sands of people, to detect a handful of persons who were actually infected.
As is the case with all non-random selection processes, the generalisability to the
intended general population remains an open question. Special attention should be
paid to the comparability of cases and controls. Several years ago it was made pub-
lic that the risks of a heart attack for heavy consumers of black coffee were twice
as large as for others. ‘Cases’ were drawn from a coronary diseases department in
a hospital and ‘controls’ from other departments of the same hospital. The ‘cases’
counted twice as much coffee drinkers as the controls. A sceptical comment was
that about 60% of heart attack victims died before reaching the hospital, and that
the conclusion might be that those who reached the hospital in time owed their
life to the fact that they were heavy coffee-drinkers. Apparently, the inversed con-
clusion is not excluded! More generally, the people entering our research group as
cases or controls may constitute a non-random selection from the intended popu-
lations. We may compare cases and controls, but little can be concluded about the
populations they originated from because of mortality, migration, disappearance
from the administration, or odd selection procedures that change the samples.
In using a case/control approach, the variance on the dependent variable is
maximised. As indicated in section 3.6.3, if several causes are involved (such as
predominantly occurs), it is almost impossible to estimate the separate effects.
This is because in one sample the ‘beneficial’ values of all variables are combined,
and in the other group the unfavourable conditions are combined. In other words,

64 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

the independent variables are maximally correlated. If we only measured the
effect of one central variable, the effect on the dependent variable is expected to
be overestimated.

BOX 3.5

A good example of retrospective as well as prospective case study research is

Van den Berg, Denolf and van der Veer (1997). Their object of research was
finding the success and failure factors in a recently developed, tailor-made system
of job intermediacy in parts of the Netherlands and Belgium. They started with
the retrospective part: exploratory interviews with 14 job intermediators. The
interviewees were asked to consider a successful case and a failed case (no job
found), and then to reconstruct the history of this person. Ample attention was
paid to the characteristics of the jobseeker as well as of the intermediator and
the other people involved with this person, and to the networks of the people
involved and critical incidents (e.g. a remark made during an interview, or a new
friend or colleague who opened up another perspective) that also played a role.
The interviewees were explicitly asked to mention the factor(s) that were decisive
in making their case a success or a failure. Only after detailing these cases were
the intermediators asked which general factors, in their opinion, were crucial in
job intermediacy. One of the findings was that the level and quality of informa-
tion about the capacities of the jobseeker and about the specifics of the job was
important. Another discovery was that staff members who did the intake and the
staff who were the real intermediaries often had a difficult relationship because
of status differences and uncertainty about the expected behaviour and ‘output’.
For the research team, this was not enough. They were sceptical about the
reliability of the memory of people, especially where socially desirable behav-
iour was involved. They also wanted to know more about the implementation of
the intended intermediacy policy. That’s why they started a prospective multiple-
case study. Some of the topics were: (1) Which decisions are taken at which
point on the time-line? (2) How do staff members collect information about the
jobseeker and how is this information used? (3) How do staff members see their
role in the relationships between employers and jobseeker?
Based on the findings of this retrospective pilot studies, a list of potentially rele-
vant factors was compiled. Then a carefully selected group of 40 people - according
to country of origin, sex and some other criteria — was followed, starting from the
intake. All were of allochtonous origin, as candidates from other countries had the
weakest position on the labour market. Per case at least four interviews were held
(one or more with the jobseeker, other interviews with intermediators and other

(Continued)

How to Select Cases? 65

 (Continued)

people involved). There are two methodological comments one can make about
this approach. First, the shortcomings of selecting on the dependent variable in the
retrospective part of this project (see section 3.6.3) are corrected by adding the
prospective part, in which the outcomes for each case were unknown. Second, this
was not a research project that was aimed at estimating the impact of one inde-
pendent variable on a dependent variable; it is not an example of what, in policy
research, is called ‘summary evaluation’. Instead, it aimed at discovering elements
of the long process of implementation of a new policy, such as unpredictable reac-
tions of people and organisational problems. Therefore, there was not a real
selection ‘on the independent variable’ at the start. The researchers composed their
sample simply by order of intake of jobseekers, thereby taking care that their cases
were evenly distributed over several countries of origin and age groups (factors
that might be of influence in the causal process).

3.7 The problem of generalisation

Over and over again in debates about the merits and disadvantages of the case
study, the problem of generalisation is raised, with single case studies as well as
with multiple-case studies. In short, the question reads: on the basis of the results
of our researched case(s), what can be said about non-researched cases?
To start with, we have already seen that hardly ever enough cases can be studied
to use inductive statistics for generalisation to the intended domain in the way it is
usually done in extensive research. According to Yin, in case studies the role of
inductive statistics is replaced by what he calls ‘analytic generalisation’. In his
view, cases are not considered as units of research, but each case, in the tradition of
laboratory psychology, is to be treated as a new experiment. A case study is an
experiment to test a theory. Yin’s motto runs as follows: ‘case studies, like experi-
ments, are generalisable to theoretical propositions and not to populations or uni-
verses’ (Yin 1994: 10). Compare this to Niederkofler (1991): ‘The case study
investigator's goal is not to demonstrate the validity of an argument for statistical
populations or universes. Rather, he aims to create and expand rich theoretical
frameworks that should be useful in analysing similar cases.’ Consequently, in case
study research, it is assumed that we do not deal with a sample-to-population logic,
but with generalising from case results to a theory or model. The label analytical
(or theoretical, or logical) generalisation has been established in the literature (see for
instance, Firestone 1993). Yin’s argument, however, deserves further analysis.
In the first place, Yin presents the comparability of case study and experiment
rather easily. Typical for an experiment is the care researchers show in trying to
model reality in the situation under study, in order to let only relevant variables

66 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

play a role, and the care with which it is isolated from sources of error . The results
of a laboratory experiment are therefore, in principle, directly translatable in terms
of the theory that inspired the experiment. This means that the theory is con-
firmed if the results are as expected, or that the theory is conditioned or extended
if unexpected results emerge. Typical for a case study, however, is a natural situa-
tion in which variables of all types are entangled. Interpreting the results of one
case, or a few cases, in terms of a theory, depending on the state of our knowledge,
is therefore a hazardous matter. The odds are that relevant variables are not
included in the model or that we discover something ‘interesting’ simply by acci-
dent. The central problem is that we think we can replicate a case study in which
only one aspect of the context is changed (e.g. a study about the police force in a
small city being replicated in a large city), but that in doing so we change many
other variables simultaneously. Producing different results, one can hardly state ‘it
depends on the level of urbanisation of the context’, or, in the case of comparable
results, ‘look, the level of urbanisation doesn’t play a role’. Results obtained in this
way — replication with one or a few cases — have an hypothetical character, and of
course need further testing. And they need to be explained. An answer to this kind
of question can be approached by:

e replication with new cases

¢ comparison with dispersed results of earlier studies
¢ argumentation and presentation of the argument to a forum of experts. If a heterogene-
ous group of experts cannot think of any plausible argument why our results cannot be
generalised, our position is strengthened.

BOX 3.6

If we want to study, in 2010, the effects of innovation X in a number of medium-

sized chemical industrial enterprises in state Y, we take, for instance, a sample
of five or six cases. Our argument probably runs that one is allowed to gener-
alise to all medium-sized enterprises in state Y. It is not a watertight argument
in view of the sample. Our position is strengtheried if, in every enterprise, we
find the same results. It is weakened ifthere is variance among cases. Generally,
there is ample space for subjective evaluations by the researcher.
Often, researchers take another step. We may assume that ‘state’ or ‘region’
is an irrelevant variable, and draw the conclusion that we are allowed to gener-
alise to comparable enterprises in other states. Hopefully, research in other states
can be undertaken, but in practice we formulate our conclusions without any
empirical base. In the same vein, we may conjecture that our conclusions are
also valid for small enterprises in the chemical branch, or for the non-chemical
sector, or for 2018. The assumptions about comparability remain untested.

How to Select Cases? 67

 In using informal procedures such as these, we often read the expression
‘theoretical generalisation’. This can be allowed in so far as a striving towards
abstraction and perhaps conditioning is at the basis of the argument, and as long
as we remember that the end result has an hypothetical character. Obviously, this
uncertainty is applicable to statistical generalisation as well, so in the end there
is perhaps not much difference. But in ‘qualitative generalisation’ there is more
room for intersubjectively different trust in the assumptions used. Yin (1994;
chapter 5) cannot be accused of neglecting such difficulties. He indicates several
ways by which the researcher can strengthen his/her conclusions. They all boil
down to ‘enlargement of data points’ (see Chapter 5).
Second, the difference between generalising to a broader domain and generalising
towards a theory is not as large as it seems at first sight. The expression ‘theoretical
generalisation’ may often be read as ‘domain generalisation’. It often comes down to
generalising to other populations, other places or times, other circumstances, other
operationalisations, etc. Only in the latter procedure do we deal with generalising
from operational variables to theoretical concepts, or from an operational model to
a theory. Our central focus is to show that in all these forms of generalisation steps are
taken that are not only (or not at all) supported by empirical evidence, but above all by
interpretative argumentation by the researcher. The researcher, implicitly or explicitly,
handles a model of relevant variables. The leading idea is that the more the non-
researched cases are similar to the researched cases, the more valid the generalisation
is. The assumption is that given the background and contextual variables the studied
cases have in common, the researcher is allowed to generalise to cases comparable
on those dimensions. The free use of untested hypotheses needs not to be rejected.
It is standard procedure. This is immediately clear in thinking about the time aspect.
If we did not use the untested assumption that, for instance, the year the research is
carried out is irrelevant, all evaluation of policy interventions would be irrelevant,
since policy research is of course meant to be useful for the future.
The standard view with respect to generalisation on the basis of a case study is
that, owing to the small number of cases, statistical generalisation cannot be
applied in case study research, and that, in this sense, case study results are far less
generalisable than survey research results. Curiously, in the literature we some-
times encounter the statement that case study results are more generalisable than
results of other research strategies.° This contradiction can be explained as follows.
In comparing a case study with a laboratory experiment, we may conceive a case
study that is undertaken in a natural context, as more ‘true to reality’ than a

°A superficial, but frequently heard, commonplace about case studies is that their strong side is
the internal validity, but their weak side is the external validity or generalisability. This means that
in a case study we might be able to discover causal mechanisms rather well, but that we often
have no idea about the possible domain of cases. Often one speaks about a ‘trade-off’ between
both types of validity. Bonoma (1985) sketches a two-dimensional space, in which many research
strategies (including experiments, tests, surveys and case studies) are located. The horizontal axis
represents ‘currency’, meaning something near to generalisability, and the vertical axis a combination

68 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

psychological experiment in an artificial situation with the proverbial psychology
students as actors. Especially when — and here we return to the conditions that
prompt us to carry out a case study — problems are complicated and the phenom-
enon to be studied cannot yet be isolated from several contexts, we do well to
undertake research in ‘the natural environment itself’. Even if we could establish
causal relationships in an experiment quite well, a result of this kind would only
cover a minor aspect of the total problem, and we are not able to generalise. This
is a way of viewing, for instance in the context of market research (Bonoma 1985),
that may be legitimately defended.
Whether result R of a case study can be generalised to domain D depends on
the result of the following considerations:

e the homogeneity of results over the cases studied so far (reliability in the classic sense)
¢ the internal or causal validity of result R. This validity depends on the quality of the study,
on the success or failure of ruling out alternative causal interpretations, on the number
of data points, the plausibility of the interpretation, etc.
e the construct validity of the applied indicators of the relevant variables
e the complexity of the set of relevant variables, and whether the phenomenon can be
isolated from contextual influences (if the model contains only a few variables that can
be isolated from contextual characteristics, generalisation is much easier than when we
deal with a complex model that cannot be isolated from its context)
e the similarity of relevant (that is to say, R-influencing) variables between the studied case
and D. As D mainly contains non-researched elements, knowledge can only be of an
hypothetical character
e the precision of the statement we want to generalise. The more precise or informative the
statement is (i.e. the more content it has), the harder it is to generalise. For instance, a
typology is easier to generalise than a statement regarding the relation between two
variables, especially if we specify (some aspects of) the frequency distribution.

We must also point out one unfortunate practice that is often encountered in case
study reports, that is the habit of discussing a specific studied case, without explicit
generalisation, in terms of a very broad domain. One reads conclusions such as:

z
of reliability and internal validity. Curiously, the author locates case studies in the lower right
corner: low internal validity, high ‘currency’! This is the consequence of a totally unsatisfactory
definition of the criteria used. If we compare a case study with a laboratory experiment, evidently
case studies lack randomisation and control groups. Consequently, causality (internal validity) is
harder to obtain than with a real experiment (however, the extra data points and detailing in a
case study offers us other possibilities of control). And with respect to generalisation, Bonoma
apparently has something like ‘reality-near’ in mind when he values the currency of a case study
more than the currency of an experiment. Generalisability, however, means that it has been
proved, or at least made plausible, that a case study’s results are valid for such-and-such non-
researched cases, and in this respect the case study generally scores very low. An objection with
respect to the ‘trade-off’ idea refers to the suggestion that quality of data is interchangeable with
generalisability. Obviously, widening the possibilities to generalise is useless if nothing of value can
be offered. Besides, the exact mix of methodological demands with which to confront a research
design is dependent on the character of the research question.

How to Select Cases? 69

‘in a medium-sized enterprise in sector X it was found that..., while in a small
architect’s firm it was found that...’

or:

‘in a highly developed Western country it was found that..., while in an African
development area it was found that...’ .

We tend to forget that in the first study only two specific enterprises were studied
(the object was the phenomenon of profit sharing), and in the second study two very
specific countries, countries that differ from each other on 1,001 aspects. Besides,
they are perhaps not very convincing or fortunately chosen representatives for all
‘Western communities’ or ‘African developmental areas’. Especially if interpretations
of the detected differences are interpreted in terms of these contexts, the suggestion
is made that the selected cases represent all medium-sized enterprises in sector X,
etc. Obviously, a researcher is allowed to present tentative interpretations of discov-
ered differences, but many more interpretations are possible. Besides, some reflection
on the limits and homogeneity of the involved domains is necessary. To summarise,
the validity of our conclusions with respect to non-researched cases is a matter of
more or less plausible arguments. In follow-up research our extrapolations may well
be refuted. And in general, it remains a difficult task to generalise results from stud-
ied cases to other and larger domains of cases.

3.8 Conclusions

Before reflecting on the selection of cases, we have to delineate as precisely as pos-

sible the domain under study. In an exploratory approach, however, we have to be
aware of the fact that the actual boundaries of the domain may shift. Furthermore,
in basic research one is generally free to restrict or enlarge this domain at will; in
applied research the boundaries of the domain are often prescribed by the client
and/or the subsidising agency.
A selection problem with respect to the cases is not universal. We pointed out
several situations in which the researcher tries to include all cases of the domain
in his/her sample as well as the situation where the researcher is just pleased to
accept any case because of the rarity of the phenomenon. We also examined the
use of the case as a decisive factor between two competing theories.
If, however, one has to choose one or more cases from a domain containing
many cases, one should keep in mind that the standard procedure in extensive
research — random selection — finds little recognition in intensive research, simply
because of the fact that rarely is the number of cases large enough to warrant a
reliable estimation of domain parameters. Only when, with the help of other cri-
teria, a large inventory of eligible cases presents itself, can one additionally apply

70 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

the principle of randomly selecting cases to be included in the study. Whichever
other criteria are used, the selected cases should be informative as well as repre-
sentative for frequently occurring types of case. Very rare types of case might be
interesting, but for policy research goals, the selection of the more frequently
occurring types is more efficient.
Other criteria are of a pragmatic or a substantive nature. Practical arguments for
selection deal with distance, time, money and accessibility. Substantive arguments
deal with the variance of independent or dependent variables or with develop-
mental phases. The following list presents a summary:

All available cases e when the domain is very small

e when the cases are very inaccessible
e with ‘critical’ cases
e with ‘unique’ cases
e with ‘revelatory’ cases
Random selection ¢ only as an additional criterion
Pragmatic grounds (distance, e preferably only as an additional
time, money, accessibility) criterion
Substantive criteria
1. Homogeneous on the e advisable at the start of a
independent variable. research programme
2. Heterogeneous on the e advisable to explore the
independent variable. limits of a theory
3. Homogeneous on the e not advisable
dependent variable.
4. Heterogeneous on the e not advisable
dependent variable.
5. Selection on developmental ¢ good, but are cohorts
phases comparable?
6. Selection on the causal e can be used in special situations
relationship :
7. Selection of critical cases ° can be used especially when testing
a theory

Whichever procedure is used, conclusions with respect to differences between

cases, and the causes thereof, cannot possess more than an hypothetical status (for
the moment assuming that no sub-units are involved). Generalising to sub-domains
(large and small enterprises, Eastern states and Western states) is only tentatively
possible. On the other hand, if we consider case studies as complementary to
extensive research, this problem is less important; other research instruments
may provide answers about frequency distributions and statistical relations. The
problem of case contamination has to be tackled in the context of successive

How to Select Cases? fiat

phases in a case study programme. Generally, when little knowledge is available,
one starts with comparable cases, drawn from a sub-domain, and afterwards, one
explores the boundaries of the mode by gradually varying dimensions.

EXERCISES

3.1 Select three case studies from your library or web sources. Scrutinise the
case selection procedures. To which class (see this chapter) do they
belong? Are there, in your view, other (better) ways to select cases? In
your opinion, which research decision was taken first - one regarding the
intended domain, or one about the selected cases? What about the
number of cases in each study?
3.2 Read Chapter 3 of Glaser and Strauss’s The Discovery of Grounded
Theory (1967). Write a commentary on this chapter using no more than
4OO words.
3.3 In an evaluation of a reorganisation of healthcare services in Mexico,
areas were selected (i.e. local clinics and their catchment areas, the clin-
icS being within a certain distance from all points in the area). From the
original 12,284 areas, 100 were selected in co-operation with the
Mexican authorities. These were matched as equal as possible on a large
number of characteristics into 50 pairs. One member of the pair was
selected randomly for the treatment, the other was used as ‘control’ area.
What types of selection were combined in this approach?
3.4 Read again the concluding remark in Box 3.4. One could expand this
remark by stating that scientists regularly, or even normally, ground their
activities on a dissonance between two or more ideas, beliefs orfindings, and
then try to explain the contradiction by expanding earlier explanations and
theories. What is the difference between a new theory and a statement
such as ‘The Earth was saved because of the faith of our group’?

KEY TERMS

critical case study selection on the dependent variable

unique case selection on developmental phases
revelatory case study selection of critical cases
random selection retrospective research
selection on pragmatic grounds prospective research
substantive criteria statistical generalisation
homogeneous on the independent variable analytical (theoretical) generalisation
heterogeneous on the independent variable

72 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 What Data to Collect?

In this chapter, we discuss, rather briefly, three data sources used in case studies
(section 4.1). In section 4.2, with the help of an example, we argue that some
obvious theoretical notions should guide data collection. In section 4.3, we
discuss, with Lieberson as our guide, the specific difficulties regarding causal
conclusions in situations where we collect observations on a few cases and a
few variables. We also refer to Ragin’s approaches of the causality problem. In
section 4.4, a summary is presented and conclusions are drawn.

4.1 Introduction

The usual sources of data are field documents, interviews with key persons or
informants, interviews with ‘members’, and observation. Our discussion in this
chapter refers predominantly to the case studies of organisations.
An effective way to get to grips with a case study subject is to study any rele-
vant documentation. A first orientation by means of the study of documents, if
present, is obviously an efficient approach: agendas and minutes of meetings, self-
evaluations, earlier research reports, letters, memoranda, newspaper clippings,
programme proposals. Archives are also a good source: for example, the number
of clients per period, geographical characteristics, inventories of members, service
records, electoral results, and many other statistics. Documents and data such as
these are very stable and, unlike interviews, they are outside the researcher’s influ-
ence. They may, however, be biased towards the institutions and persons who
constructed them! This should always be borne in mind when using such data.
Interviews are the next data source to be discussed. A necessary first round of
interviews not only gathers information in an efficient way, but also allows the
researcher to gain admittance to the site and key personal such as area experts,
branch experts and historians. ‘Common’ members of the group should be inter-
viewed next. This will result in a number of interview transcripts.
Observation mostly serves a complementary purpose. It focuses primarily on
human behaviour, but observation of physical artefacts, material resources and of
people’s surroundings may also help to develop insight in the processes at hand. It
need not necessarily be participatory observation, that is observation in which a
researcher fulfils a functional role in the social system under study during a certain
period. Alternatively, observation may be carried out during a field visit or during
the research phase of interviewing. Observation is an important element of case
study research and cannot be omitted on some occasions. As a main method, how-
ever, it is a time-consuming and expensive approach. It results in a lot of observer
notes of various types that have to be analysed! If the processes and phenomena
to be studied took place in the recent or distant past, observation is obviously
excluded.
With respect to interviews, we make a distinction between informants and
respondents. Key personnel are designated as informants. In selecting key persons,
we do not proceed randomly, but generally focus — for instance by means of a
snowball procedure and an accidental initial contact — on well-informed indi-
viduals. Mostly, we interview people who have a leading role in the organisation
or who have an otherwise important position. In organisational research the
persons who are strongly involved in the phenomenon under study are contacted
directly, possibly by telephone. Another point of entry is via the highest level in
the organisation, and a third is via ‘external experts’ who know the field as well
as the targeted social system. An approach by telephone or email, followed up
with personalised postal correspondence is preferential to an anonymous approach
or a speculative letter.
Informants, in the first place, supply general information about the phenome-
non and the social processes in which they are involved. Their personal experi-
ences are, for the time being, less central. However, they may also report about
their own experiences, social relations, perceptions, attitudes and behaviour. With
this information, the investigator can construct a detailed picture of how the proc-
ess goes on and is to be explained. However, we do not yet know whether our
informants are representative of the group or solely of the layer they are assumed
to represent. We could construct hypotheses, of course, but we would be looking
too far ahead and jumping to conclusions about differences between groups of
actors based on the utterances of a small number of people. Conclusions such as
these are only possible if we, preferably by means of a random sample and a stand-
ardised interview, conduct a survey of a reasonably large number of people.
In a survey we use the word respondents. A standardised survey-approach offers
the opportunity to reliably describe perceptions, attitudes and behaviour of differ-
ent groups, and to test explanations about the process based on the properties of
individuals. If the individuals, for instance the employees of an enterprise, repre-
sent a lower level of aggregation (the enterprise being the original level, the case),
we deal with ‘nested units’ and a ‘nested case study’ (see section 5.3)
With respect to the selection of informants, in small organisations we will
include perhaps all members of the organisation in the study. In medium or large
organisations, after stratification according to relevant characteristics, within
each layer a sample can be drawn. In school research, for instance, the differences
between ‘members of the management team’, teachers, administrative and technical

74 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

staff, pupils, parents and parents’ council are relevant. We may represent strata
such as these by different numbers of informants. If, for instance, it seems impor-
tant to represent opinions within a certain small group reliably, the number of
respondents in that group may be enlarged.
Data collection naturally implies selection: selection not only with respect to
people, but also with respect to roles, activities, processes, events, temporal points
and locations. It is important to document the many selection decisions and
choices we make beforehand, in a protocol. This not only refers to the questioning
of informants in interviews (and respondents), but it concerns the whole field of
possible data sources. It indicates whom, and how many persons, one is going to
approach; which documents to study; and whether one conducts interviews by
telephone or face to face. A protocol, prepared in advance, helps us not to lose sight
of the central research questions. It demonstrates the researcher’s use of a compa-
rable approach by going from one case to the other, and that (s)he uses identical
questions. When several researchers are involved, the use of a protocol also ensures
that differences between interviewers or observers biases are minimised.
However, in our view, a protocol is only one side of the picture. In practice, each
researcher deviates from a protocol to a greater or lesser extent. It is therefore
important to carefully record the researcher’s actual behaviour while conducting
the case study, for instance in a research diary. A diary also offers the opportunity
to maximally profit from unexpected outcomes of the case under study so that the
protocol for the next cases can be adjusted. In this book we leave further sugges-
tions and ideas with respect to the implementation of data collection in the field
to the reader. There is an abundance of manuals and handbooks to help the reader
in this subject.’
The protocol and the diary help to realise two goals that are central to data col-
lection (Yin 1994: 94-9). The first is the creation of a case study database; the
second is maintaining a chain of evidence between data and conclusions. According
to Yin (and we fully agree), ‘every case study project should strive to develop a
formal, presentable database, so that, in principle, other investigators can review
the evidence directly and not be limited to the written reports’ (Yin 1994: 95). In
survey research it is far more generally accepted than in case study research to
consider the database and research report as different things. This situation needs
to be changed. Case study investigators should make explicit and retrievable their
‘notes, documents, tabular materials and narratives’ (Yin 1994: 95). This advice
should not be taken as a hint to fully edit ali the material one collects and produces
during the research process. This would take far too much time, and seldom do
other researchers ask for the original data. But the principle of making your data
available and retrievable should be kept in mind in all circumstances. It also serves

'The reader may want to consult the following (old, but not obsolete!) titles: McCall and
Simmons (1969); Schatzmann and Strauss (1973); Bogdan and Taylor (1975), but see also the
updated version of Taylor and Bogdan (1998).

What Data to Collect? 75

another function for the original researcher: often an important interpretative step
can be taken in a flash of inspiration or on the very weak basis of a single observa-
tion or one utterance of a key person or respondent. Being forced to reflect on
situations such as these, a good researcher asks him/herself to search for more
empirical evidence in support of the given interpretation, as well as for evidence
to the contrary! Sometimes, it may be impossible to find more evidence. This
should be made transparent as well as it may be a quite defensible position under
the circumstances. Making explicit the chain between data and conclusions is
another goal all researchers should strive for. The report's readers, who want to find
the empirical evidence for a certain conclusion, should be able to verify the link.

4.2 Data and theories

With respect to a research project’s relationship with ‘theory’, four options may
be distinguished:

e No theory is used in the research project. A phenomenon is described using everyday

terms, without scientific abstraction. Using an old label for this practice, we call it ‘idio-
graphic’ research. In such cases, the researcher selects what to observe, perhaps making
use of earlier research.
e The project aims at the construction of theory. In this case, we need an exploratory
approach; to be open to whatever reality has in store for us. However, at the beginning
of the project we will head to select some (probably) relevant variables and leave out
some (probably) irrelevant ones.
e An extant theory is used in the research project. In applied as well as in basic research,
an extant theory is used to describe and/or explain a phenomenon, deduct predictions
about a future course of events or to develop interventions. Furthermore, in basic
research it may be that a case study is used for the sole purpose of illustrating a theory.
Here, the theory offers relatively clear indications about what variables to use and what
not to use.
¢ The project aims at testing a theory. The result of a testing approach is that an hypoth-
esis, formulated in measurable form at the start, is confirmed or refuted, or (an unfortunate
result) that the result remains undecided.

In a case study, the initial theory often consists of only some vague ideas about real-
ity. A case study in basic research is mostly directed towards the (ongoing) develop-
ment of a theory. Rarely does one start with a well-articulated complex of related
propositions about reality in order to test or illustrate this theory. In applied case
study research, the use of theory is strongly advocated. In applied research no
intended theory construction or testing takes place. Of course an exploratory
approach may be followed. The aim, however, is not to construct a theory (a
theory may result as a by-product) but to familiarise with the case, to describe
relevant characteristics, and to search for general theories that might be applied to

76 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

explain things. Also, in applied research we may test a theory, for instance if we
desire to check thoroughly whether a certain theory might be applicable before
using this theory as a frame for description, explanation and designing policy
means. But also, in this case, the result for the theory is a by-product. In applied
research existing theories are used; it is not the researcher's explicit intention to develop
or to test theories.”

The following scheme summarises these alternatives:

Relation to theory Basic research Applied research

None Not applicable To be avoided

Theory construction Yes Not intended
Use of theory Yes; a case can also be used as To be advocated
an illustration
Theory testing Yes Not intended

4.3 An application of theory

To answer the question which types of data are to be collected, we focus on

the same topic as Miles and Huberman did (1984, 1994): innovation processes
in schools. This topic, conceived by us in a wider sense as success of innovations in
organisations, constitutes one of the important fields of application of modern case
studies. We question what data are collected in a study such as this, which gener-
ally takes one or two years of research. In an applied research project such as this,
we use theoretical ideas based on rational choice theory and the Fishbein/Ajzen-
model.’ This certainly doesn’t mean that we accept these theories as unquestioned
complexes to explain our observations. For instance, it is evident that many choices
in human behaviour are not very rational (see also section 4.3.5). But a theoretical
starting point is instrumental. It enables us to make a grounded choice out of all pos-

7
“Instead of setting out with the usual distinction between exploratory, descriptive and explanatory
case studies, we prefer to use the character of the research question as the starting point. After all,
a research design doesn’t come from out of thin air, but is a consequence of the research question.
Moreover, most designs are mixed because research questions of a diverging character are to be
answered (e.g. exploratory and descriptive questions, or exploratory and explanatory questions).
Furthermore, we do not agree with Yin’s distinction between exploratory, descriptive and explan-
atory theories (Yin 1993: Chapter 1). Overall, the same theory can be used for very different
purposes. Furthermore, Yin uses a rather strange definition of theory: ‘the design of research steps
according to some relationship to the literature, policy issues or other substantive source’ (Yin
1993: 4). This has little in common with the generally accepted definition of a theory, focusing on
a net of propositions about an empirical domain.
3See, for instance, Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) and Swanborn (1996b).

What Data to Collect? 77

sible variables, and to have a frame for the interpretation of results. We use knowledge
gathered by earlier investigators as well, of course.
In this substantive field much research has been going on, and we know the
main relevant variables. Actually, the work done by Miles and Huberman them-
selves has contributed considerably to our knowledge because these authors have
already constructed an inventory of variables and concepts that are considered to
be relevant in innovation processes.
We focus on the behavioural choices of individual persons. Participants in a
social system are continuously confronted with choices: whether to participate in
the innovation or not; which activities to undertake; who to ask for information,
etc. We do not deal with just one choice at one moment from a restricted number
of alternatives, but during the process choices are continually changing, depending
upon the decisions already taken as well as upon the changing environment.
Starting with some theoretical notions does not mean that a theory, for example
rational choice theory, is exclusively valid for the situation under study. It only
means that we base ourselves, when confronted with a multitude of alternatives,
on an approach that is very general and that has proved to be applicable and suc-
cessful in other similar scenarios. In this way, we improve the efficiency of our
endeavour.
Our (still broad) research questions might be:

e How is the process of innovation proceeding?

e What problems occurred and how did we overcome them?
e Why is this innovation in some organisations implemented quickly and without many prob-
lems, while the same innovation triggered a series of problems in other organisations?

The first two research questions are descriptive; the last one requires an explana-
tion. Obviously, in dealing with the last one, it is assumed that we have already
solved the earlier descriptive questions.
Reading documents is, of course, the first phase of the fieldwork. It provides us
with insight into the roles of certain groups of stakeholders and of key personnel.
It can also be useful in unravelling crucial events (hopefully!) and in sorting out
problems that emerge during the process. Studying documents, however, is almost
never sufficient. In order to amplify and strengthen our knowledge we need infor-
mation from key people in the organisation. These people are approached for two
distinct types of data. The first one is to ask each informant about material and
physical conditions and barriers, and about the thoughts, motives, attitudes, behav-
iours, and so on of a certain group ‘on average’, at a certain point in time and
according to his/her knowledge. Obviously, the informant is asked primarily about
the group (s)he belongs to, but we may also inquire about, for instance, the
teacher's impression of the perceptions of management and pupils. The second
kind of data refers to the informant’s personal experiences. We try to get a complete
picture of the initial situation and of developments through time — knowledge,
expectations, valuations, social contacts with respect to the innovation, attitudes,

78 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 behaviour, etc. Here we see the specific advantages of a case study: namely, to
explain on the level of the individual explicitly and in detail the causes of the
individual's behaviour.

4.3.1 Target variables

We notice that the first descriptive problem demands an accurate account of
the progress of the innovation process. Now it depends, of course, on the kind
of innovation we are dealing with — the innovation of a curriculum, a new
teaching method, an additional schooling project, an experiment in parents’
participation — that determines which variables can function as markers for the
- state of affairs. Let us assume that we are dealing with the use of computers for
certain teaching purposes by teachers, and that this school’s policy aims for the
full participation of all teachers. Distinguishing between target variables (the
dependent variables) on the one hand, and independent variables on the other
hand, we start by discussing the target variables. The final central target variable
is, evidently, the percentage of participating teachers. A target variable such as
this is often complemented by other, less central, target variables. Examples
would include the kind of work one uses the computer for, how many pupils
are involved in the teaching; how much time is spent on the computer, and so
on. These variables are surely not the ones that would necessitate a case study.
All of them are quantifiable; they can be measured reliably at a certain moment
after the introduction of the policy.
Target variables, however, have some other important aspects where a case
study becomes very useful. Target variables may be well known or they may
hardly be known. Perhaps they are only known by a restricted group of actors
(e.g. the schools management team), or perhaps they are shared by a larger group.
Furthermore, perceptions of goals may differ largely from the officially established
goals. Target variables can change in the course of time, for instance when they
meet with strong resistance, or when there is a lack of objective opportunities
(e.g. lacking knowledge about computers, unvaliable software). Only by monitor-
ing an innovation through time with all groups of relevant actors may one get to
grips with the role these targets play in the actual process.
This ‘monitoring in time’ deserves futher-comment. These not only refer to the
dependent variables, but to all variables relevant to the study. Our point of depar-
ture is that the more points in time the measurement is based on, the more precise
and detailed our description can be. The question arises of how many points in
time should be involved in the measurement procedure. Regrettably, the number
of temporal points is often rather restricted. Researchers and policy-makers gener-
ally agree on the necessity of measuring the ‘baseline situation’. Also, the impor-
tance of measuring the contextual characteristics of the case (such as the presence
or absence of an adequate infrastructure) and of the people involved (abilities,
motivation, uncertainty) is not debated. The problem is that, owing to financial
and practical circumstances, the monitoring process often is restricted to just a few

What Data to Collect? 79

points in time and, in the worst case scenario to only one point, sometimes after
the innovation has actually been implemented.
Moreover, it is clear that interviews are held at certain discrete moments, and
that book-keeping occurs with reference to a certain discrete moment, although
researchers may be inclined to refer to ‘continuous monitoring’ in a case study. On
top of that, contrary to a multi-moment survey, in a case study one cannot refer

to ‘successive waves’. Respondent A is interviewed at a different moment from

respondent B. There is continuity, but it is not systematic with respect to observa-
tion and interviewing. However, using retrospective questions in each interview,
one can try to cover a certain common period in all interviews (for instance, a
specific month or a six month period). This, in principle, creates the opportunity
of collecting data from all interviewees that are more or less comparable (e.g.
focusing on the original situation, the situation after two months, after four months,
after six months). Afterwards phases may become recognisable and labelled, such
as start, expansion, consolidation, drawback. A distinction, which is afterwards
decided upon, is generally linked to certain crucial events (a stimulating course, a
sudden enlargement or shrinking of financial resources, the introduction of new
material, the withdrawal or replacement of a leader, a decisive meeting, a policy
change, or whatever). The link has to be explicitly legitimised. Moments such as
these are more readily remembered by the respondent, and questions that are
asked about behaviour or opinions at such moments produce more reliable results
than questions about behaviour and opinions on 1 March, say, or during, the last
two weeks of June, etc.

4.3.2 Procedures of explanation

To solve the general explanatory research question, we should focus on interacting
people. The central actors in our school example are the teachers: it is the indi-
vidual teacher who decides whether or no to use computers in his/her work.
Other relevant groups of actors are the management, the board of directors, the
administrative staff and the pupils. Thinking about the causes of different levels of
success of innovations in organisations, and even why, under certain circumstances,
in practice things go far differently than what is expected, we realise that a process
of innovation depends on individual people.

¢ who are to a certain degree prepared; who are to a certain degree prejudiced; who
are to a certain degree willing to change; who are to a certain degree forced to change;
who partake in specific stakeholders groups; who are provided, to a certain degree,
with the physical goods needed in the processof innovation;
* Who, during the process, experience events and who gather certain knowledge and
ideas; who have contacts with others who transfer their positive or negative motivation,
or from who they learn abilities;
¢ and who do, or do not, adjust their views, opinions and behaviour.

80 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 The final result of all these changes in interactions, opinions and behaviour may
be that the end effect concurs or does not concur with the original goals of the
innovation, and that the contributions of individual participants to the innovation
may differ strongly. Now the question to answer is: how can we predict the out-
come of a person’s choice? A central place is taken by the idea that a person, who
is confronted with a choice, is led by his/her expectations with respect to the conse-
quences of participation and of non-participation on the short term and in the long
run. Each alternative leads an individual to compare its advantages and disadvan-
tages. The core of rational choice theory is, in general, that people choose the
option that offers the most favourable outcome for them.
So, the next question is: expectations in which respects? In our example, we
may think of physical costs, such as training costs; loss of leisure time; keeping or
losing one’s job; improvement of teaching results; keeping or losing one’s col-
leagues’ social approval. One may for instance be afraid that participation will
lead to loss of social approval from colleagues, while abstaining will not effect
this approval. As a result, there will be a tendency not to participate (all other
aspects excluded!). But after some time the situation may have changed: as more
colleagues do participate (for other reasons), the expectation may take a reverse
direction: one may now become afraid of being seen as old-fashioned, and there-
with losing social approval by non-participation! These fine details of a social
process only become visible by a case study.
There is a complication. People may have different opinions about the relative
importance of all these ‘aspects’, and for one person aspect A is far more impor-
tant than aspect B, while for another person the balance may be the opposite. So,
in order to explain and predict a person’s choice, we need information about what
is called the evaluation of these expectations. In other words: what are the respec-
tive weights of training costs, loss of leisure time etc. for the person involved? If a
certain consequence (let’s say: ‘loss of leisure time’ is of no importance for some-
one, (s)he may expect that participation in the innovation will cost a lot of leisure
time (or almost no time at all), but whatever the expectation, it is not relevant
for the attitude and the behaviour of that person.
The attitude of a person is considered to be the result of a summation of the prod-
ucts of expectation and evaluation over all consequénces.’ The idea of ‘product’ (of
two variables, here expectation and evaluation) implies a statistical interaction between
expectation and evaluation; hence the ‘x’ in Figure 4.1, which is the usual notation for
a statistical interaction. So, in principle, for each person the expectations (and how (s)
he values this expectation) for each of these consequences should be measured; per
consequence the expectation and its evaluation are multiplied, and the products are
summated into a score for ‘attitude’. The model can be simplified by taking only some

‘Empirically, this assumption cannot be tested, because a multiplication requires that expecta-
tions as well as evaluations be measured at a ratio scale level, which generally cannot be realised.
See for instance Evan, M.G. (1991) and Meiienbergh, GJ. et al. (1990).

What Data to Collect? 81

general consequences of behaviour into account (usually time, money and social
approval), and assuming the evaluations to be equal among persons.
Now there may be a large cleavage between attitude and behaviour. An attitude
may be very positive, and still the corresponding behaviour does not take place.
In order to explain this discrepancy, we need the very important idea of ‘oppor-
tunity structure’. Sometimes one can hardly define a situation as a free choice
situation, especially when participants in a social system are forced to act in a
certain way. Enforcement by the management is an example. Also belonging to
this category are material conditions; presence or absence of expertise and help;
own abilities. Several social contexts, each with its own regulations and restric-
tions, may be involved: the school, the union, the municipal council, the state.
These circumstances illustrate one of the arguments for doing a case study: the
fact that the phenomenon to be studied cannot be isolated from its context(s).
The opportunity structure for behaviour according to one’s free will may be
extremely limited (such as in traffic), or be less limiting, such as the availability
of sufficient material for instruction during an organizational innovation; one
might acquire the material elsewhere, although this will cost some time.
A distinction, however, has to be made between the objective and the subjective
opportunity structure. The subjective opportunities — that is, the objective oppor-
tunities as they are seen, perceived, by people — may be different from the objec-
tive opportunities. One may have a wrong idea about one’s own capacities and
abilities, or simply not be informed about the existence of technical assistance; e.g.
the presence of a help-desk. In a process analysis the researcher may discover that
a discrepancy between objective and subjective opportunities explains why per-
sons may start enthusiastically but gradually become inactive, because they had a
wrong perception of their own abilities. Others experience a long period of hesita-
tion before becoming active, because at the start of the process they didn’t know
about the presence of a help-desk or the willingness of other people involved to
help them. Many participants in a social system have a one-sided view on the
topic, and even get it completely wrong. The researcher, by being informed from
several sides, and on the basis of his/her experience, sometimes easily blows the
constructions that people themselves make. It certainly is a topic that stimulates
the insight that there are several kinds of ‘truth’. Having people talk freely about
perceived obstacles and barriers, is one of the most useful assets of field studies.
We conclude that the attitude of people depends on their expectations with
respect to the consequences of their behaviour. However, this is only one deter-
mining factor of their behaviour. The other factor is the opportunity structure. In
Figure 4.1, the essence of what has been said above is pictured in a causal dia-
gram. We designed the model mainly to indicate how the ultimate behaviour
(degree of participation) is determined. But we may also distinguish intermediate
phases in the behaviour: speaking with others about the innovation; asking for
advice; studying documents and other activities that are relevant for reaching or
obstructing the final aims of the innovation. The model may be used for each of
those phases separately.

82 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 expectations

xX > attitude

evaluations

objective opportunities > behaviour

|
subjective opportunities

Figure 4.1 A first path diagram

4.3.3 Explanatory models

The model shows that attitudes are determined by an interaction of expectations
and evaluations, and that what results is one of the determinants of behaviour.
Additionally, behaviour is directly determined by the objective opportunities. But
also indirectly: the objective opportunities determine the subjective opportunities
which, in turn, determine behaviour.
An additional arrow could be drawn from behaviour back to the expectations. It
is perfectly possible that someone starts very motivated and convinced of their own
capacities, but that (s)he quickly discovers personal shortcomings, or other unex-
pected factors. Obviously, this may influence the expectations at a later moment.
On the left side of the model an important component should be added. A
complication is that at the start of the implementation some people involved may be
largely uncertain about their expectations and they cannot estimate the consequences
of their own behaviour. This can provoke resistance towards any change. Therefore, it
is important — certainly in the initial phase — to carefully establish whether the
informants have a clear idea of what the innovation is going to mean for them, that
is, having knowledge with respect to the consequencés of the innovation.
Expectations and knowledge about their’own abilities are, in turn, influenced by
background variables, such as education and prior experiences with innovations
such as this. Therefore, a block of background variables should be added at the left
side of the model. At the base of expectational or attitudinal differences, are differ-
ences in background variables: sex, age, number of years in service, education, prior
experience and, above all, position in the organisation (in the schools context, a
member of the management team, a teacher or administrative and technical
staff). Most background variables are ‘hard’ and can be operationalised at the start
of the project without ambiguity. Furthermore, they need only be measured once.
A shortcoming of the model in Figure 4.1 thus far is that it typically represents
a model for the determination of individual behaviour; it does not show the

What Data to Collect? 83

influence of the individual’s social environment. Therefore, on the left-hand side
of the model some more arrows should be included, representing the influence of
other actors on the individual’s expectations, etc. The crux of a (process-tracing)
case study is exactly that the process of influencing can be studied by establishing
links between opinions, expectations and attitudes of the individual person on the
one hand, and his/her relations with other people on the other hand. Contact
with others may lead to changing expectations and opinions in several ways. One
perceives more people actually starting to participate. As a consequence, one gets
more isolated if one does not participate, or one gradually becomes convinced of
the advantages of the innovation and, as a consequence, one expects more posi-
tive effects as a result of self-participation. Or one gradually views the objective
opportunity structure in a more realistic way, or one picks up, through interac-
tions, some of the skills and abilities that are needed in the process. Managers will
probably stimulate social interaction about the innovation, especially the positive
effects of an innovation, in the hope that it will become more widely accepted.
Social interaction implies not only directly ‘helping’ individuals, but also the
gradual construction of a social context that supports, judges, and serves as a ref-
erence group for the individual. Expectations with respect to the approval of
others may influence the cost/benefit ratio of their own behaviour. And if one
expects that many colleagues will drop out, owing to lack of time or other rea-
sons, it is irrational to continue oneself because of the risk of becoming socially
isolated.
The researcher will therefore ask questions such as:

e Who do you interact with?

e Who do you ask for information?
e Who are you influenced by?

Assuming that data on knowledge, expectations, aspirations, etc., are at least

measured with some respondents at some points in time, the researcher is able to
carry out checks on statements such as: ‘at the time I was strongly depending on
Joan because she could tell me a lot about it’. If we include these ideas, we can
produce the model shown in Figure 4.2.
A problem remains that an adequate completion of a real ‘sociomatrix’ (a square
matrix in which each cell indicates the presence or absence of a specific social rela-
tionship between the row-person and the column-person) assumes standardised
questioning in terms of ‘what are you doing with whom?’. Missing data are difficult to
deal with. The exploratory character of an approach, in which the researcher, during
the process, finally reaches an adequate formulation (and consequently misses that
information from earlier interviewees), cannot be reconciled with this.
One might represent the process of innovation for one person by drawing a long
‘time line’, on which — at several consecutive points in time — the scores of this per-
son on the crucial variables are indicated. To give a much shortened illustration:

84 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

e (low) expectations on ty
* contacts with the very enthusiastic person X
* (positive) expectations on t,
e the first (disappointing) own experiences
¢ (negative) expectations on t,
e forced to develop own abilities
¢ (moderately positive expectations on t,
e renewed behaviour and its evaluation, etc.

education
number of years in company knowledge ——»> expectations
position in company
ere

aceon —»fs
attitude —» behaviour

social contacts with people vat a nga

having certain opinions, _———————————_> objective opportunities
activities |

subjective opportunities

Figure 4.2 An extended path diagram

The causal model in the figure is, as it were, replicated for one person, going from
left to right (and from up to down in the enumeration above) a number of times,
even if only with a small number of variables.
One of the strong aspects of a case study is the opportunity it offers to focus
on (dis-)similarities between the ideas and perceptions of several groups of peo-
ple involved. We try to explain group-specific ideas and perceptions by establish-
ing links between individual opinions and background characteristics. Sometimes
we confront informants with the ‘mental models’ of others, or with the research-
ers’ explanation. When we deal with ‘individual participation’ diverging answers
can be expected. We may ask people how“they evaluate their own behaviour in
comparison to that of others. If everyone provides us with an answer, we can
study whether the perception of their behaviour is in accordance with reality (as
reflected in the opinion of others), and again try to interpret differences. We may
question informants about their own explanation of the developing process.
Perhaps these explanations concur with each other and with the researcher's
explanation. In this context, the term ‘debriefing’ is used: a researcher regularly
puts his/her work (results and procedures) before colleagues to have them
evaluate it. The quality of the research can be considerably enhanced by this
procedure.

What Data to Collect? 85

 4.3.4 Analytic narratives

In some aspects, the approach followed in this section has common grounds with
the so-called ‘analytical narratives’ development in methodology.” At the start of
the twenty-first century, this method, originating from political science, economic
and historical traditions, tries to put case studies in the frame of rational choice
theory and game theory. From the ‘narratives’ of a case study we can extract the
goals and preferences of key actors and the effective rules that influence actors’
behaviours. The method also implies that strategic interactions that produce equi-
librium of the system are investigated. These interactions constrain some actions
and facilitate others. The label ‘narrative’ refers to the science of history: it pays close
attention to stories, accounts and context as it traces the behaviour of particular
actors, clarifies sequences, describes structures and explores patterns ofinteraction.
Cases covered vary from the International Coffee Organisation to twelfth-century
Genoa (Bates et al. 1998). The approach is characterised by a central concern with
institutions, but focuses on choices and decisions. Institutions are effective in the
sense of rewards and punishments, and can be analysed as actors in game theory.
The label ‘analytic’ refers to the process of identification of individuals and col-
lective actors, and discovering the actors’ preferences and perceptions, their evalu-
ation of alternatives, the information they possess, their expectations and strategies,
and the constraints that restrict their actions. Outcomes of the studied process are
accounted for by identifying and exploring the mechanisms that generate. them
(Bates et al. 1998: 10-13). Methodologically, this research approach has more in
common with finding a suitable model by a process of iterations than with tradi-
tional theory testing. The theory is used as a tool for discovering facts rather than
as an immovable structure. The ‘analytic narratives’ researchers, however, start
with descriptions of historical events and often end up with mathematical models.
Both features are absent in the methods sketched in sections 4.3.1-4.3.3. Common
ground, however, is qualitative descriptions to start with, the application of theories
from the beginning, and the use of the ‘variable language’.

4.3.5 Discussion
Above, we used a set of central concepts to illustrate which data are to be collected
in the first place, within the frame of a case study on innovation implementation.
For several reasons, the reader may feel uneasy about this approach. To start with,
it seems contradictory to the usual, open character of a case study to try to mould
data to a previously constructed theoretical set of concepts. The reply, however,
would be that we need theoretical concepts such as these anyway, to steer data
collection (which variables do we include?) and to bring order into the collected
data. It is, of course, possible that some of these concepts prove to be barely relevant,

>One of the central sources is Bates et al. (1998). See also Rodrik (2003), as well as the special
edition of Social Science History, 2000, 24 (4).

86 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

and that others will need to be considered during the process of collecting and
analysing data. Being open to different choices and flexible in approach is a prereq-
uisite for a case researcher. Besides, we can already dispose of a number of the
relevant variables about innovations in organizations. In this sense, our example is
certainly not typical of a classic exploratory approach. Anyway, we do not yet
know why in this organisation the innovative process develops in this specific way.
The theory is used as a tool for disciplined empirical research.
The process of finding and evaluating evidence in case studies in a disciplined
way is sometimes referred to as the quasi-judicial method. This label indicates
that the emphasis is on eliminating erroneous interpretations. Dennis Bromley
(1986: 25-6) describes this procedure by setting out eight formal steps for applying
this method to clinical or social science research.° These are the following:

1) The initial problems and issues of the case must be clearly stated.
2) Background information should be collected to provide a context in which to understand
the problems and issues of the case.
3) Existing or prima facie explanations of the case must be evaluated to determine whether
they fit the evidence and to discern how they are lacking.
4) A new explanation should be set forth correcting the problems identified in the previ-
ously existing explanations.
5) The sources of evidence and the evidence itself used in the new explanation must be
evaluated or ‘cross-examined’.
6) The internal coherence and logic of the new explanation, including its compatibility with
the evidence, should be critically examined.
7) The new explanation’s conclusions regarding the case must be presented.
8) The new explanation’s implications for comparable cases must be discussed.

These steps clearly illustrate the necessity of making the explanations explicit,
including the concepts and theories used, during the research process.
A second critical question would be whether it is useful to apply the concepts
in a situation where there are a very low number of informants. A decent data
analysis requires equivalent operationalisations, little missing data and a large
number of units. Only under these conditions would we be able to draw conclu-
sions about the applicability of a theory or about.the relevance of variable X
compared to variable Y. However, we use the data of our informants to comple-
ment our raw causal model, which contains variables such as expectations, evalu-
ations, attitudes and behaviour, and to correct it. How does the process affect this
person, or that person? In doing a survey the most we can conclude is that a dif-
ference exists between an individual opinion on t, and t, (t, mostly on retrospec-
tion!). With a case study, however, we can detect intermediate changes and
developments, and even offer explanations for them, even if we are studying only
a few people. Changes in goals, accidental contacts, changing opinions are seldom

6Bromley actually presents ten procedural steps for the ‘quasi-judicial’ method, which are integrated
into eight steps, as mentioned above, by Chima (2005).

What Data to Collect? 87

detected in a survey, and can lead to much unexplained variance. In a case study
we can tackle this unexplained variance. We focus on the details of a complex
social interaction.
A third objection to our approach might be that, in a case study such as the one
chosen, we need organisational theories in the first place, not some general behav-
ioural concepts such as the ones we used. Yin (2003) seems to tune his classifica-
tion of theories to the aggregation level of cases dealt with. He mentions

individual theories (for example, theories of individual development, cognitive behav-

iour, personality, learning and disability, individual perception, and interpersonal
interactions); group theories (for example, theories of family functioning, informal
groups, work teams, supervisor-employee co-ordination, and interpersonal networks);
organisational theories (for example, theories of bureaucracies, organisational structure
and functions, excellence in organisational performance, and inter-organisational part-
nerships); and societal theories (for example, theories of urban development, interna-
tional behaviour, cultural institutions, technological development, marketplace
functions) as well as theories that cut across levels, such as decision-making theory.
(Yin 2003: 31)

We fully agree that theories specific to each level and specific to substance, exist
and should be applied appropriately. But it is our opinion that in focusing on a case
study on people, who interact with each other in specific circumstances and under
certain conditions, and who are endowed with certain abilities and are striving for
certain goals, we should primarily study variables such as those pictured in Figures.
4.1 and 4.2. Knowledge deduced from specific theories of a higher level of aggre-
gation should be fully used, of course, in complementing our design. But, after all,
we study people.

4.4 Causality

The debate on the shortcomings of case studies focuses on two aspects: the expla-
nation problem and the generalisation problem. Here, we focus on the assumed
impossibility of drawing reliable causal conclusions. Within this context, Campbell
and Stanley (1963) commented upon the absolutely insufficient character of the
‘one shot case study’.’ Later this severe judgement was considerably weakened in
view of the arguments to be discussed in Chapter 5 (see also Cook & Campbell

"This is the classic reference source for social scientists reflecting on the possibilities for causal
reasoning in non-random situations. This contribution had its predecessors, was afterwards pub-
lished as a monograph, and was finally replaced by the influential volume by Cook and Campbell
(1979). In this standard source, many possibilities for causal argumentation in non-random situa-
tions are offered. The introductory chapters on causality and validity are of a high level, and are
difficult for many students to follow. Chapters 5 and 6 contain an introduction to time-series
analysis for single-subject designs (again, not an easy read). An updated text is Shadish, Cook and
Campbell (2002).

8&8 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 1979). In this section, we explore the causality problem a bit further. These para-
graphs may serve as a prelude to Chapter 5.
Lieberson (1991, 1994) and Ragin (1987, 2000) discuss the difficulties con-
nected with causal interpretations based on a small number of units. Lieberson
reaches a negative conclusion, Ragin is more optimistic. Before explaining the dif-
ferences, we emphasise that their definition of ‘case studies’ is very special and
does not take into account the richness of information that case studies may have.
That is because they exclusively focus on documentary sources. They work with
‘hard’ variables on the level of the cases only (as political scientists, they pre-
dominantly deal with nation-states). They do not deal with organisations and
_individuals, where triangulation can be applied and usually data is much more
rich, flexible and diversified.
To understand their contributions, it is necessary to first discuss the usual argu-
ments with respect to the impossibility of causal analysis in case studies. In exten-
sive research, causal analysis is effected on the basis of handling, in an exploratory
or a testing mode, causal models. These models are represented by an a priori or a
posteriori sketched ‘picture’ of variables connected by arrows. They suggest the
construction of cross-tabulations over a large number of units. Once a correlation
has been detected between two variables connected by an arrow, we conclude
that at least one of the necessary conditions for a causal influence is present. In
case research, in principle nothing prevents sketching, and working with, a causal
model (as we actually did in the preceding paragraphs!). But looking at the pos-
sibilities for causal analysis, at first sight our endeavour immediately comes to a
stop. With one case, we see that one high value on dependent variable Y co-exists
with a specific value (high or low, to keep it simple) on a possible independent
variable X, but that only fills one cell of the cross-classification, and with only one
observation (this is the old argument for using the derogatory label ‘one-shot case
study’). And even if the number of cases is enlarged to eight or ten, the N is far
too low to draw a reliable conclusion about a statistical association between
X and Y. The central problem in doing case studies is, according to Lieberson, that
a researcher may have very inspiring ideas (about the failure of attempts to reach
a certain target in evaluation research, for example) but that in the context of one
or a few case studies this idea can nai e: tested; unless data on sub-units are
collected. A

Lieberson® (1991, 1994), following Skocpol (1979) and Nichols (1986), has
illustrated quite fundamentally the impossibility of causal analysis in working with
a small number of units in terms of Mill’s ‘method of difference’ and ‘method of
agreement’ (Mill 1872). This is pertinent because researchers using a multiple case
study often implicitly or explicitly refer to one of Mill’s famous methods to argue

8For a more extended treatise, see Lieberson (1985). This book does not explicitly cover case
study methodology, but it is a must for anyone interested in the possibilities of causal argumenta-
tion in social science research, and therefore also in case studies. The author criticises thinking in
terms of ‘explained variance’ and other habits in daily research practice.

What Data to Collect? 89

that one cause is more important than the other. We agree with Lieberson, that
generally it is hardly possible to base such statements on empirical data. All inter-
pretations of data on the basis of a small N presuppose deterministic associations,
while in reality probabilistic models should be used.
Mill’s classic ‘method of difference’ implies that if we dispose of two cases that
differ on the dependent variable and on one other variable, while they are identical
in all other respects, only this one (independent) variable can be the cause of the
difference on the dependent variable. Lieberson poses the question of whether it
would be possible, in this way, that is to say by a comparison of the situations and
behaviour of two drivers, to determine whether ‘drunk driving’ is the cause of an
accident (see Table 4.1).
Assuming a correct dichotomisation of these variables, and neglecting measure-
ment error, we have to conclude from this data that the cause of the collision is

Table 4.1 The problem of the two drivers

Car from Runs through
Accident Drunk driving right-hand direction Driver speeding red light
Yes Yes Yes No Yes
No Yes No No Yes

the approaching car from the right-hand side, while drunk driving or neglecting
traffic signs have nothing to do with the accident. Both drivers are drunk, but only
one of them gets himself involved in a collision. Our error is, of course, that we
implicitly assume that the independent variables do not interact; that the impact
of cause or condition A is independent of other causes or conditions. With only
two cases, there is no way to control this possibility. And if we enlarge the number
of cases a little by introducing a case for each of the 16 logical possibilities, we
remain with the question of whether all relevant variables have been included, and
whether they can be measured without error. In short, the results in Table 4.1 say
nothing about the relative influence of such independent, conditional variables.
We continue, with Lieberson, the argument in Table 4.2, in which the scores of
the first driver remain as in Table 4.1, but those of the second driver are changed.
We are now confronted with Mill’s ‘method of agreement’: if two identical
phenomena (now both drivers are involved in an accident) have but one factor in
common, that factor is the cause of the phenomenon.

Table 4.2 The problem of the two drivers revisited

Car from Runs through
Accident Drunk driving right-hand direction Driver speeding red light
Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Yes Yes No Yes Yes

90 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 The only independent variable that changed relative to Table 4.1 is the speed of
the second driver. One would therefore expect this variable to be the cause of the
accident now. This, however, is not the case: drunken driving and running through
a red light now compete as explanations for the collision, whereas they were
excluded in Table 4.1. The fact that in the data in Table 4.2 the second driver
drives too fast and causes an accident completely changes our interpretation of the
cause of the accident for the first driver.
Arguments in situations in which a small number of cases serve as a database are
almost always based on Stuart Mill's logic. The example shows how vulnerable the
identification of the real causes is. We add that the use of only a few variables, as in
the example above, involves a far-reaching simplification of reality, and that
dichotomisation and neglect of measurement error are simplifications as well. It
will be clear that causal analysis with case studies in the usual variate language on
the level of the cases alone is almost hopeless.
Lieberson attacks, with the above mentioned analysis, what is called comparative
analysis, which has a long tradition, especially in political science (see, for instance
Tilly, Paige, Barrington Moore, Wallerstein, Smelser, Rokkan). In political science,
usually countries or states constitute the units, and the dependent variable refers
to the political system of the unit, the origin of peasant revolutions, strikes, mili-
tary regimes, etc. In the intended explanations a small number of ‘hard’ variables,
which of course differ from one study to the next, are used.
The political scientist Ragin (1987) shows, as Lieberson does, the shortcomings
of this approach. However, he reaches an alternative solution that, on first sight,
seems to have much in common with Lieberson’s. Ragin constructs a table of all
logically possible combinations of scores on the independent variables (with three
score variables: ‘eight rows’ with four dichotomous vaiables one would have
2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 16), and subsequently establishes which value on the dependent
variable empirically occurs in conjunction with each independent scores-pattern. As
a next step, Ragin uses Boolean logic to discover under which combination of condi-
tions a phenomenon (score | on the dependent variable) occurs. In this way, he tries
to frame causal conclusions on the basis of data from only a small number of units
(mostly, countries). The frequency of occurrence is neglected. Finally, rewording the
formula into the simplest structure leads to the intended result. As an example we
present Table 4.3. The phenomena being Sttidied are the conditions for ‘successful
strikes’; the cases are a small number of studied strikes (Ragin 1987: 96).
In Table 4.3 only four combinations of conditions lead to successful strikes: aBc,
ABc, ABC and Abc. The fact that AbC as well as ABC occur, leads us to the conclu-
sion that AC is a sufficient condition. In the same way, the fact that ABc as well
as ABC occurs, leads to another sufficient condition: the pattern AB. And the
co-occurrence of ABc and aBc leads to a third: Bc. So a first wording of the conclu-
sion reads: S = AC + AB + Bc. This expression is redundant, however, because the
element AB implies ABC as well as ABc, and both patterns are already among
those implied by the other elements. So, finally, we arrive at the simplest Boolean

What Data to Collect? 91

Table 4.3 When are strikes successful?
Conditions
Aora Borb Corc Success(s) Frequency(f)

A b C no 6
a B c yes 3
A B c yes 2
A B (e yes 3
A b € yes 9
a b Eg no 6
a B C no 8
a b c no 4

A = booming product market a = no booming market

B = threat of sympathy strikes b = no threat of sympathy strikes
C = large strike fund c = low strike fund

expression: § = AC + Bc. That is to say, S (successful strikes) occur when there is

a booming market for the product manufactured by the workers and a large
strike fund, or when there is a threat of sympathy strikes by workers in associated
industries combined with a low strike fund.
In comparing this approach with regression analysis, we conclude that thinking
in terms of ‘isolated variables’ has given way to thinking in terms of ‘configurations’.
Each unit is represented by a pattern of scores on the relevant variables. In other
words, statistical interaction is taken into account. This provides advantages,
because often the impact of variable A on variable C may be conditioned by vari-
able B. Ragin uses the general label ‘multiple configurational causation’. By intro-
ducing interaction terms in a regression equation one may touch this problem, but
not solve it.
In his later work (2000) , Ragin considerably extends his thinking on methods.
He borrows the notion of ‘fuzzy sets’ from mathematics and informational com-
puting. Dichotomies like successful/unsuccessful are replaced by, mostly, seven-
point scales. These are not to be seen as common ordinal scales. They are ordinal,
but at least the first and the last category, as well as some ‘midpoint’, are to be
theoretically interpreted anchor points, and the assignment of units to the verbally
labelled categories requires careful consideration. He presents evidence for his
finding that many variables are less ‘hard’ than one might think at first sight, a fact
that accentuates the need for more differentiation than membership/
non-membership of a category. Instead of a dichotomy such as this, it becomes a
matter of degree how a unit belonging to a set is expressed. On the other hand,
Ragin thoughtfully comments on the use of (apparently crisp) ratio-level variables
and the usual correlation and regression analyses, because of the fact that much of
the variation on a variable might be irrelevant (e.g. distinguishing between states
that are 400 years old and states that are 200 years old on a variable ‘age’ that
covers the whole domain of nation-states), but, mostly, because regression is based

92 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

on additive models of variables, while variables actually interact with each other
in affecting a dependent variable.
Another important addition in his later work is the introduction of probabilities
in the analysis of necessary and sufficient conditions for a dependent variable. It is
recognised that missing variables may result in the appearance of empty cells
in the cross-tabulations of independent and dependent variables, and measure-
ment errors may be incurred in observations in the ‘empty’ cells. That is why Ragin
establishes some a priori percentages ‘that should be obtained’, such as ‘necessary
and/or sufficient in 90% of the cases’, while maintaining the principle of necessary
and sufficient conditions.
The reader is reminded of the essence of sufficiency and necessity in logic and
in causality by the following definitions:

e ‘Ais a necessary condition for B’ implies the impossibility of non-A/B.

e ‘Ais a sufficient condition for B’ implies the impossibility of A/non-B.
e ‘A is as necessary and sufficient condition for B’ implies the impossibility non-A/B and
A/non-B. Hence, in the cross-tabulation of two dichotomous variables, one being the
necessary cause of the other, at least one cell is empty. Likewise if it is a sufficient condi-
tion; at least two cells are empty if A is a necessary and sufficient condition for B.

Ragin’s ‘fuzzy-set method’ is also used for the analysis of causal relations in a
restricted number of cases, while some of the cases’ properties may be based on a
lower level of aggregation, for instance individual persons. In a study of neighbour-
hood (dis)satisfaction in 29 European post-war housing estates (ranging over 16
cities), the author applies Ragin’s method to detect what patterns of independent
variables caused satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the people living in these estates.
The dependent variables were based on large-scale surveys as well as some of the
independent variables. It was found that the ‘social mix’ of a neighbourhood did
not — contrary to the expectations — affect the satisfaction score, but the combina-
tion of ethnic mix and lack of social cohesion has apparent negative effects (Van
Gent 2006). It might be interesting to compare results with those of a multi-level
analysis of the same original data.
Ragin’s point of view with respect to homogeneity might give rise to misunder-
standings about the population or domain to study.’As, for some part of the popu-
lation, causal processes may be quite different from those for another part, Ragin
(2000) considers the search for a relevant and homogeneous population as one of
the central aspects of case (or rather case-comparative) studies. A population
(= a domain) defined in advance might be too heterogeneous to make sense. In his
opinion, ‘“diversity-oriented” research follows the lead of case-oriented research
on problematizing populations and emphasizing their constructed nature.
Populations are viewed as no more than working hypotheses and are open to revi-
sion in the course of an investigation’ (Ragin 2000: 45).
Ragin illustrates his ‘search for homogeneous populations’ with the example
of the influence of the economic gap and political representation on riots.

What Data to Collect? 93

Calculated over all American states (the cases in his multiple-case study), the
correlations are low. But the influence of economic gaps on riots is strong in
the Northern states, and the influence of political representation is strong in the
Southern states. So, the Northern states seem to constitute a domain that is dif-
ferent from the Southern states with respect to this causal reasoning. In other
words, the geographical situation interacts with both independent variables. In
statistical terms, Ragin’s ‘homogeneity of populations’ boils down to the absence
of interactions between independent and contextual variables. It is generally
advisable to be aware of these interactions, but it does not seem to be advisable
to take Ragin’s striving for homogeneity too rigidly, because this procedure
might end up as a series of isolated single cases (no two cases are exactly
the same). Our emphasis, in Chapter 3, on delineating the domain or population
as strictly as possible at the start of the research, is independent of the
rather narrow meaning that Ragin attaches to domain as a function of a causal
structure.
Ragin’s work on causal analysis, based on some principles of set theory in math-
ematics and the availability of data on a moderate number of cases (usually N is
about 5-50), has found many followers in recent years. Use of his methods is
facilitated by the availability of computer programs. In QCA 3.0 (Drass & Ragin
1992), the simple use of dichotomic variables and Boolean operators is applied. In
FS/QCA 2.0 (Drass & Ragin 1999), all fuzzy-set procedures are implemented as
well as the use of probabilistic criteria. Both programs can be downloaded from
the website www.u.arizona.edu/~cragin.
The significance of these procedures is restricted to the availability of data
from a multiple-case study, and to specifically causal research questions. As such,
it fits perfectly well within the political sciences’ interest in the methodology of
case studies. The field of applications is, however, already much wider.
Some of the objections against the first set theoretic approaches have more or
less disappeared, such as the fact that in dichotomising continuous variables
much information is lost, or that frequencies are not taken into account. Still,
several simplifications that are needed remain hidden in the background. First is
the fact that its use seems to be restricted to the macro-level, where relatively
‘hard’ variables are used and measurement error is not grave. Second, there is the
problem of variation in scores on the dependent variable with units having an
identical pattern on the independent variables. Third, we are forced to restrict
ourselves to models with only three to five variables, while valid models require
a lot more variables. Another argument — mentioned by Ragin himself — refers to
the difficulties when some patterns simply do not occur and analysis is very much
hindered. Finally, it is not always evident that results in terms of configurations
of independent variables can be interpreted theoretically. However, Ragin is
probably right in his opinion that the interpretability of results of his configura-
tional approach is better than the results of the usual row of beta-weights result-
ing from a regression analysis based on isolated variables. Nevertheless, stressing

94. Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

the fact that there are several causal ways that may result in the same outcome
is a methodological advance.
From the general methodological point of view that the
use of more methods
and different approaches (also in the analysis of research
data) is better than
restricting oneself to one method, and the general idea that
Ragin’s method could
supplement other methods, we recommend experimenting with it.

4.5 Conciusions

The data sources of central importance in case studies are field documents,
informants and observation — in this order. In an example, it is indicated that
informants may supply information about (part of) the social system they
belong to, as well as about their own expectations, values, experiences and
behaviour during the period under study. The process of collecting information
is always guided by a theory, even if it is a very primitive one — perhaps only
consisting of some commonsense ideas of the researcher. We used a path dia-
gram to sketch, on a micro-level, how individuals, in their behaviour with
respect to an innovation, are guided by their goals, their (restricting or facilitat-
ing) circumstances, and their social relations. In a case study, many individual
people, representing different groups of stakeholders, are intensively studied. By
detailing their social relations as well as their development, we are able to cre-
ate a picture of a process in an organisation, and suggest explanations for stagna-
tion or progress.
We paid attention to causality, and to Lieberson’s pessimistic view on the pos-
sibility of causal analysis using only a few cases. We also discussed Ragin’s solutions
to causality problems using case study data. Both views are especially relevant to
the analysis of ‘aggregated level’ data, such as in the political sciences. Ragin’s
methods are not the only way to study causality. As we will see in the next chapter,
the opportunities for causal analysis are considerably widened if we think of
multiple-level cases studies, and of other ways to enlarge the number of data
points. On the level of individual actors within a case, serious work with respect to
explanations can be done, for instance,’ tésting whether the role or position of
individuals is a strong determinant of their motivation, or a reflection of the time
they are willing to invest. Within one case we can dispose of data of many indi-
viduals, and we can construct cross-tabulations and estimate covariances. Another
interesting alternative is to enlarge the number of measurements in time: time
series analysis is the obvious example. We have to keep in mind, of course, that
we need to satisfy the other necessary conditions for causality: time order and
the absence of spurious causality. Moreover, the presumed causal connection
should be plausible, that is to say, understandable, and interpretable in order to
be accepted.

What Data to Collect? 95

- yea]
EXERCISES

4.1 Use the monographs selected in Exercise 1.3. Scrutinise all data sources in
these studies and answer the following questions. (a) Does the researcher
account for his/her steps in collecting data? (b) Is a protocol and/or a
diary mentioned? If so, what is the use of these methods? (c) Which key
persons are approached? Is this, in your opinion, an adequate selection?
Which key persons are omitted?
4.2 Apply the list of theoretical concepts described in section 4.2 to the phe-
nomenon of a merger process between two food distribution chains in
your country, in which the research question concerns the problems expe-
rienced in the process and how people coped with these.
4.3 With respect to causal conclusions in the monographs of Exercise 1.3,
(a) are the labels ‘causality’, ‘causal influence’, etc. used by the author?
If not, do you think these labels are avoided while they are in fact essen-
tial? (b) If causal conclusions are drawn (explicitly or implicitly), do you
consider this as justified? Scrutinise the evidence, first, for a conclusion
about the correlation between variables, and second, to interpret this cor-
relation as testimony for a causal influence.

KEY TERMS

field documents target variables

informants explanatory models
respondents path diagram
observation explanation with a few cases
theory Boolean logic

96 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 How to Enrich Your Case Study Data?

A fundamental criticism of case studies is that case study data permit many
interpretations, theories and models, and we often do not have enough data to
select, in a sensible way, one out of many alternatives. To express this in technical
language, there are more theories than data. In this chapter, we use the concept
of ‘degrees of freedom’ (section 5.1) to clarify this point. In sections 5.2-5.9 we
discuss several ways to enrich our data, that is, to solve the problematic lack of
degrees of freedom.

5.1 Introduction: degrees of freedom

To start with, research results might be (partly) random. We know that the vari-
ance of a social phenomenon over a number of units is almost always composed
of ‘systematic variance’ (obeying certain regularities, for instance, that manifest in
stable correlations with other variables) and unit-specific or random variance.
In working with hundreds of cases, as we do in extensive research, these unit-
specific and random peculiarities are supposed to add up to zero, and in this way
we are able to split the variance into systematic and random variance. If, however,
we deal with only a handful of cases, it is almost impossible to break down the
total variance into a systematic and a non-systematic component. In practice, this
means that an interpretation or explanation we attach to the results can always
be attacked (and on good grounds) by somebody who favours another explana-
tion, someone who states, for instance, that our results are based on random
fluctuations.
The problem is easiest to understand in the context of searching for a causal
explanation of a single central characteristic (e.g. the success or failure of a new
therapy or an organisational innovation). We find a certain outcome, and we try to
explain this by observation. But we can freely select from roughly all independent
variables, and several explanations will be easy to find. This argument lies at the
basis of the ancient criticism qualifying the case study as a ‘one-shot’ approach (in
Cook & Campbell 1979 the argument was substantially weakened). The following
quote indicates the idea:

An observer who notes a single striking characteristic of a culture has available all
of the other differences on all other variables to search through in finding an
explanation ... it is as though he were trying to fit two points of observation with
a formula including a thousand adjustable terms, whereas in good science we must
have fewer terms in our formula than our data points. (Campbell 1975: 179)

An often-cited example is the problem of explaining the French Revolution.

Historians have come up with at least 25 independent explanations for the origins of
the French Revolution. Actually, there are ‘more explanations than facts’! An accept-
able way out would be, of course, to take one of those explanations and to examine
whether other revolutions can also be explained by it. And then repeat the exercise
with the other explanations. Let us take another example. Suppose we desire to
determine the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in a group of six stu-
dents. It so happens that with five students our tentative explanation works very well,
but with the sixth student it does not. In the search for an explanation of that devia-
tion we may discover that the sixth student’s intelligence is below the level of the
others, and we know that a certain minimum level is necessary. Or, we discover that
the student has an eye problem that makes looking at the monitor very tiring, or the
student has a technical phobia, or has slept very badly the night before, etc.
Alternatively, we can try to explain why the other students were successful. We may
discover that all of them participated in an informal meeting the day before, where
they exchanged knowledge and task profit from the know-how of one of them. The
number of alternative explanatory theories is almost infinite (Kennedy 1979). It is
therefore useful to discuss this problem in terms of degrees of freedom (Campbell
1975). The number of degrees of freedom is, simply defined, the number of unknown
quantities minus the number of independent equations concerning the unknowns.

BOX 5.1

The number of degrees of freedom in a set of data indicates how many observa-
tions produce independent information. N independent scores possess N degrees
of freedom, which is to say that to determine these scores we need N pieces of
independent information. If we had already known the mean of the scores, we
would have ‘used’ one degree of freedom already, because if we know the
scores of three of the four observations, the last one is completely restricted: no
freedom remains to determine that score. ‘Knowledge’ such as this can also be
expressed in terms of restrictions put to the freedom of the data. Examples of
restrictions are that some linear combination of the scores should have a certain
value, for instance that the sum of the deviations has to equal zero, or that the
mean or the variance has a certain value. With four points plus a restriction such
lsas this, it means that we are dealing with only three degrees of freedom.

98 | Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 To summarise, in a case study we seem to have many theories to explain only
one research result. In other words, we have more equations than unknowns, or, as
it is commonly expressed, ‘the number of units is smaller than the number of
variables’. As a consequence, the researcher can fit almost any model or theory to
the data of the studied case.
As the number of independent data points grows (e.g. by increasing the number
of cases), we express this by saying that the set of data possesses ‘more degrees of
freedom’. Adding a case, or a variable, or the repetition of a measurement, means
that an extra demand is put to the theory: this unknown new score should fit the
theory as well. The same holds for adding predictions that imply more unknown
scores. Actually, we are looking for a configuration of data points that is unique for
one theory, and that excludes all other theories. The more data are put into the
analysis, the more rapidly the number of potentially relevant theories or models
decreases. Ideally, only one fitting theory remains. Hence, the remedy for the sup-
posed lack of degrees of freedom consists of enlarging the number of data points,
in one way or another. In this chapter, we discuss:

e increasing the number of measurement points in time

e introducing sub-units
e increasing the number of cases
e increasing the number of predictions
e using several gradations of the independent variables
e diversifying methods of collecting data
e employing several independent observers
e presenting results to participants in the study and using their opinions as extra data.

Most of these methodological modifications only bring about a relative

improvement — we may increase reliability and causal interpretations may become
a bit firmer. We do not deal with ‘wonder methods’ that suddenly bring about a
qualitative leap forwards. However, two of the suggestions above are often
applied because of their effectiveness: increasing the number of measurement
points in time and introducing sub-units. Therefore, we start by elaborating these
two techniques.
sy?

5.2 Increasing the number of measurement points in time

Although a case study researcher generally has only a limited number of inform-
ants at his/her disposal, a case study has some natural advantages over the exten-
sive survey that already weaken the ‘one-shot’ argument. While in a survey the
scores on all variables are measured at one and the same point in time, and may
be heavily influenced by the specific historical configuration, such as a political
happening, a physical disaster in that period, etc., a case study covers at least a
certain period of time, and therefore is less dependent on such events. By measuring

How to Enrich Your Case Study Data? 99

some individual variables, such as knowledge, opinions, attitudes and behaviour,
several times and taking the mean of those measurements, we may at least be ina
position to counter the interpretation that our scores are heavily influenced by
random variation.
A more basic argument is this. With respect to a causal connection, the depend-
ent variable should co-vary monotonously over time with the independent variable.
In a survey, we compare scores on variables over individuals. In a case study, by
using many measurement points over time, we can draw, per case, a beautiful
diagram in which this covariance, or the lack of it, is demonstrated.

BOX. 2

It is useful to reflect for a moment on the idea that this longitudinal approach,
which is characteristic of an intensive case study, actually is to be preferred over
the usual approach in transversal, extensive research, in which we construct cross-
tabulations over many units, but at one moment in time. In transversal research,
our interpretations depend on a comparison between units. If unit A scores higher
than unit B on an independent variable as well as on a dependent variable, we
assume that if unit A’s value would change into B’s value on the independent
variable, it would adopt unit B’s value on the dependent variable as well. This
untested ‘comparability’ assumption is avoided in longitudinal research.

It would be too optimistic, however, to think of case studies in terms of designs

that, by definition, for each unit provide us with a large number of measurements
on the same variables over time. Three or four observations per unit represent the
common situation; only two observations is not unusual. But the general princi-
ple is that the more observations one can make, the more reliable the explanation
will be.
As stated in Chapter 1, in applied science there is a strong tradition known
as ‘single-subject research’. It is also known as N=] research and as ‘case study
research’. This strongly quantitative tradition stands apart from all others in case
study research. It is grounded in the health sciences, developmental psychology
and psychotherapy. Its special character is represented in the use of multiple
observation points, in the order of 50 or more, facilitating the use of the statistical
apparatus of time-series analysis. Monitoring a patient or client on some variables
over a long period, in which a new medicine or treatment is applied, stopped,
again applied, etc., illustrates the core of the business.
Single-subject research has many applications outside the fields where it origi-
nated. An example is the study of the impact of a traffic safety regulation system on
the number of traffic incidents by collecting data before and after its introduction.
In these contexts, we mostly refer to applied science, where the label ‘case study’

100 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

is used because the domain consists of one or a few units (often a country). However,
these ‘time-series case studies’ may also very well harbour a more ‘basic scientific’
interest in a general phenomenon, such as the general effect of atherapy, the effects
of speed limits on the behaviour of people, the impact of a new law on criminal
behaviour, housing developments or the influx of immigrants and asylum seekers.

5.3 Introducing sub-units

Another way to increase the number of degrees of freedom in a case study is to

introduce a lower aggregation level, with many sub-units that may be measured
on several variables. An obvious example is the study of organisations or local set-
tlements. Many social systems contain subsystems of a lower level: schools contain
classes, classes contain pupils. When our research question refers to a phenomenon
that occurs in school classes, our observations need not be restricted to the class
level (such as the size and the location of the class), but we will, to ground our
interpretations and explanations, collect data on the level of the individual pupils
as well, and we pay attention to the relations between pairs of pupils. It not just is
a ‘trick’ to study the variance within a group of individuals, it is important theo-
retically as well, because explanations in social science are eventually based on the
behaviour of individuals. If the interpretation of an assumed causation deals with
units on a lower level, and the characteristics of these units can be measured, we
deal with ‘nested’ or ‘embedded’ units. This allows the case researcher to apply
cross-tabulations and more advanced forms of data analysis. (S)he remains within
the boundaries of the original domain of organisations, but within each element of
the domain a sub-domain appears.
Take this simple example. To explain the success of an innovation in an organi-
sation, we not only use data from several organisations (the cases), but within each
case we collect data from individuals. In the analysis, properties of organisations
(such as leadership, communication structure) come together with properties from
individuals (such as rank, position, motivation, abilities).
Relevant questions are whether all units of the lower level are included in the
study, or whether a sample is drawn. And if a sample is drawn, are units randomly
selected (stratified or non-stratified), or is some form of non-random procedure used.
Often, decisions such as this, referring to ‘selection within the case’, are neglected.
If we seriously wish to speak about respondents, comparable to a survey, we need
to be careful in the selection process. In a case study of one or more organisations
it will often be impossible to approach each member of the population by mail,
telephone or email. In a large organisation, a (stratified) random sample is most
probable. In a small organisation, such as a school, it is not wise to select ‘half’ of
the population or another fraction. It is better to include everyone.
As the number of data points grows, the necessity to quantify — and the possibility
of doing so — is larger. A large variety of procedures for multivariate data analysis

How to Enrich Your Case Study Data? 101

and statistics, as developed in survey analysis, is available. To start with, simple
procedures, such as cross-tabulation, correlation analysis and analysis of variance,
are generally sufficient. We do not discuss the traditional quantifying analysis of
large numbers of respondents or other sub-units because it is not different here
from the usual survey analysis — descriptive and explanatory analysis are standard.
Second, however, we may deal with the so-called ‘multilevel’ research designs.
They are to be considered when studying simultaneously the variance of units on
a certain level of aggregation and the variance of (sub-units that are nested within
these. Multilevel analysis can be applied when, for instance, we dispose of system-
atically collected data of respondents within a certain number of cases. In researching
only one case, it may be possible to organise systematic data collection with the
sub-units, or it may be possible that we dispose of repeated measurements of the
same units in time, but here the concept of ‘multilevel’ designs is irrelevant: with
one case we cannot study variance between cases. It will also be clear that when the
number of cases is very small, say less than 10 (which implies the main body of
case research), an analysis of variance on certain variables has little use; the number
of units is too small (and the criteria of selection used are too specific) to reliably
estimate parameters. With a larger number of cases and suitable data, it is possible,
in principle, to carry out multilevel analysis. In this way, we may, for instance, dis-
cover that certain correlations at the level of individuals occur in one type of cases
but not in another. A discovery like this is still not very interesting if the distin-
guishing variable has a nominal character: some cases yes, other cases no. It starts
to be interesting if we are able to label the variable in question — if we can interpret
and understand why that interaction between individual level-variable and case-
level variable occurs. During the past decades multilevel analysis has offered
many new avenues to analyse data adequately. Well-known programs are HLM 6
(Raudenbusch & Bryk 2002) and MLwiN 2.12 (Goldstein). Some general statisti-
cal packages such as SAS and SPSS also contain multilevel analysis procedures. !
This still doesn’t mean that a multilevel model can always be adequately concep-
tualised and interpreted. In the field of case studies the applications are still rare.
Apart from departments, classes or persons, several other types of sub-units can
be considered. In a more general sense, for example, these can be activities, events,
meetings, choice situations, social or technological processes, or interactions with
the environment. McClintock et al. (1979) use ‘planning events’ in a case study in
the public sector; ‘choice situations’ in a welfare organisation; and ‘tasks’ in a uni-
versity in which the numbers were so large that a quantifying analysis was possible.
Even an individual person can be ‘split up’ in sub-units such as ‘roles’, ‘abilities’,
etc. In research practice we find applications of the same principle in handling
documents. Within a document, paragraphs, sentences or words can be the sub-
units, and within a film, systematically chosen fragments can be the sub-units.

'A useful introduction to the theme is Hox (2002). See also Kreft and De Leeuw (1998), Snijders
and Bosker (1999) and Raudenbush and Bryk (2002).

102 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 McClintock et al. (1979) introduced the label case-cluster method in this frame
to clarify the clustering of sub-units within the case.? They developed a case-cluster
method as a completely autonomous approach. This includes working with several
categories of informants. After designing a blank cross-tabulation per category of
informant or respondent, information is collected for each cell of the table. We
think, however, that McClintock et al.’s case-cluster method scarcely deals with
case study research. It refers mostly to a field study in which a (large) number of
units are included. The units (planning situations, choice situations, tasks) can be
randomly selected because there are so many of them. The case is just a time/spatial
framework (McClintock et al. use the expression ‘focus-organisation’; more gener-
ally, focus-level) for the sampling of sub-units that constitute the actual domain of
the research question. McClintock et al. do not seem to be aware of this dilemma
— that is, ‘what it refers to’. However, the phenomenon to be studied of the case
study deserves a central place. When we consider the question of whether counter
employees choose a formal or an informal approach when dealing with customers,
and we study this phenomenon in two post offices, we may call these post offices
the cases or ‘bearers’ of the phenomenon, and label the lower level of ‘counter
interaction’ as a unit of observation. But this then turns the whole matter upside
down. The real domain of the research question is constituted by social interac-
tions and the selected post office is the more or less accidental location in which
these interactions are studied. The number of social interactions can be multiplied
infinitely, and here the term ‘case study’ is clearly inadequate.
With respect to the selection of an ‘umbrella’ social system, sometimes there is
an argument to select a context in which the sub-units show maximal variance,
while the differences between the selected context and other contexts are minimal.
The idea is that in the selected context the heterogeneity of the population is
maximally reflected. The selection of a higher-level unit as starting point has, how-
ever, more relevance for external validity (the generalisability with respect to time,
place and social systems) than for the problematic methodology of case studies. Our
main attention is obviously focused on relations of the level of the units within
that system. Another important problem is related to working with ‘special types’

*From this point of view, McClintock et al.’s ‘case-Cluster method’ (1979) may aptly be called case
study methodology, contrary to our earlier remarks. Besides systematic selection, mostly using
stratification, of cases, they work with a systematic selection of informants from different groups,
called ‘stakeholders’ in the context under study. In a university, for instance, technical and admin-
istrative staff, students, and scientific staff belong to several echelons. Strangely, McClintock et al.,
in cross-tabulating events (tasks, ‘planning events’ or other sub-units) against kinds of informants,
pretend to present a kind of Multi Trait Multi Method (MTMM) design, while on the other hand
they emphasise the importance of the existence of different opinions within different groups of
stakeholders. In a MTMM design, the desired result is obviously that differences between methods
(informants) are subordinated to differences between objects. Therefore, McClintock et al.'s refer-
ence to MTMM is inconsequent. The final aim of MTMM, the comparison of correlations, in order
to estimate the reliability and validity of substantive results, becomes obscured (McClintock et al.
1979). See Appendix 3, ‘A note on triangulation’.

How to Enrich Your Case Study Data? 103

of sub-units. It deals with demarcation. Demarcation of, for instance, ‘tasks’ of
employees in an organisation is not simple. To prepare a cup of coffee will gener-
ally be considered too small as a unit; ‘to do research’ as too large.
Ne there any more procedures we can adopt to increase the number of
data points?

5.4 Increasing the number of cases

The more cases are studied, the more independent information becomes available.
In a multiple-case study, several questions are raised:

¢ Do we study and analyse these cases simultaneously or consecutively?

e If consecutively, do we adjust our methods and techniques, such as the wording of ques-
tions and the data to collect, to our experiences with the earlier cases?
¢ Do we compare the results of the cases with each other, and how do we deal with dif
ferences and similarities between the cases?
¢ Do we aggregate the information from different cases?

The answer to the first question is determined mostly by practical considerations,

such as available time and whether we can recruit enough researchers to work in
the same period. There is also a financial argument: studying cases in parallel gener-
ally costs less time than tackling one after the other; in the same time period more
cases can be tackled. This is often a strong argument for following a parallel or
simultaneous approach. A more basic argument, pointing in the other direction, is
that studying cases one after the other offers the opportunity to adjust procedures,
for example after stumbling upon an unexpected problem. Frequently, the approach
taken in later cases is different from that followed earlier in the study. The answer
to the first question, therefore, seems to lead us towards conducting a ‘pilot study’
with one or a few cases, on the basis of which the definitive approach and question-
ing is determined. Afterwards, other cases can perhaps be tackled simultaneously.
Following this procedure, however, sometimes confronts the researcher with a
dilemma: are the results of the pilot cases to be included in the final result (not-
withstanding, for instance, the lack of important data, or less reliable results
because a wrong question was included) or should they be ‘forgotten’ once they
have served their purpose in clarifying the cases? Obviously, the last solution is the
better one. In practice, the researcher will be strongly tempted to include the pilot
results because of the usually small total number of cases. A compromise is perhaps
advisable: use some, but not all, results from the pilot studies.
The answer to the other questions is of course related to the arguments for
selecting more than one case. When cases are selected because we expect them to
be comparable, and consequently to be represented reliably by a common model,
we deal with pure replication (or as Yin (2003: 47) says ‘literal replication’). In this
situation we will test the descriptions and explanations developed on the basis of

104 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 the cases studied earlier, with new cases. If our hypothesis about comparability is
not rejected, we possibly aggregate results over several cases. Perhaps, however, we
selected certain cases because, on the basis of theoretical considerations, we expected
contrasting or at least diverging results — Yin uses the expression ‘theoretical
replication’ when we try to enlarge the boundaries of the domain.
What we start with depends upon our hypothesis regarding the homogeneity of
the domain. Assuming the possibility of rather large differences between public
and private educational systems, we will allow for separate types within this frame-
work. But this assumes, for instance, after having studied three private and three
public schools, that the variance within each type is much smaller than the variance
_between types.
A comparable situation emerges when we wish to compare cases in an exploratory
way, implying that we do not have specific expectations regarding the results. This
offers the opportunity to explore the limits of the descriptions and explanations
developed on one case, or to formulate hypotheses about the causes of differences
between cases. We are dealing now with external validity or generalisability. Here
again, several procedures are in use. The first one is that we strive for a model that
is common to all cases studied. This procedure is advocated and popularised by
Glaser and Strauss (1967). Study one case, design a model, study the next case with
this model in hand, adjust the model till both cases fit, go to the third case, etc.,
until, as is hoped for, all cases fit and no further adaptation is needed (Glaser and
Strauss refer to this as ‘saturation’ and Yin calls it ‘explanation building’). An objec-
tion to this inductive approach is that it is awkward, in a qualitative approach, to
decide clearly what is similar and what is dissimilar. Of course, certain margins have
to be accepted, but how wide do we allow them to be? Another objection is that
no a priori boundary is set for the complexity of the model. Adding a newly studied
case under the wings of an already existing model is often only possible after intro-
ducing new specifying conditions in the model. This causes the model to be more
complicated. And the more each new case leads to further adjustments of the
model, the less parsimonious and the less interesting it threatens to be.
A second variant is that we allow differences between (types of) cases. This
alternative is often searched for when the quest for a common model threatens to
fail. Now we design types: for certain cases we destgn model A, for other cases
model B. As no two cases are exactly idefitical, the researcher is likewise con-
fronted with the choice between similar and dissimilar, equivalent or not equiva-
lent. Not infrequently, it is a next best solution. However, from a methodological
point of view, a typology is of a lower level than a theory. Therefore, we emphasise
that constructing a simple typology (mostly the final result of this approach) is a
rather all to easy procedure; a taxonomy or typology is almost always easy to
design. Whatever we do, it is at the least necessary to argue why the designed
typology is as it is. Hypotheses regarding the causes of the differences should be
sought for; differences between cases should be explained and interpreted.
A still cheaper solution is to describe, analyse and report each of the cases sepa-
rately. It is the least demanding procedure that fits the idiographic tradition quite

How to Enrich Your Case Study Data? 105

well. Again, we have to try to formulate hypotheses regarding the differences
between the individual cases.
In order to solve explanatory problems, the best way is to try to design one
informative theory that is valid for all cases studied.

5.5 Increasing the number of predictions

It is generally advocated — as a kind of ideal — that it is better to work with com-

peting theories in studying one case. This remedy for the problem of the lacking
degrees of freedom is, in our opinion, outside the context of formulating a null
hypothesis, not of much practical value (besides, in extensive research, time and
again research experience shows that the one ‘crucial variable’ as well as the
other ‘crucial variable’ plays a role, that is to say that no single theory explains
the results). Campbell (1975) indicated another way to expand the number of
degrees of freedom. From each theory, each model, one can deduce a larger or
smaller number of predictions, to be tested with the data of the case itself. It is not
true that each theory can be applied to a case; it even shows that an experienced
researcher, after seriously studying one case, seldom unconditionally accepts a
specific theory because always some data seem to refute the theory. Within the
limits of the study of one case, often some extra degrees of freedom are already
present because several dependent variables are measured. We deal in this respect
with the idea of ‘pattern-matching’ (Yin, 1984, 1994): a complex pattern of scores
has to fit a theory. Our point of departure is always that if theory T is true, the
consequences or predictions p,, Pg, Pc --- Pz are to be true. In dealing with an
evaluation of the effects of an intervention (as so often is the case) it is not very
informative to state that X (the intervention) co-varies with a certain value on the
dependent Y variable. But if scores on some five or six different Y variables show
the predicted pattern, there is much less room for uncertainty.

BOX 5.3

In a study on the impact of ‘access window’ times on retailer distribution costs,

Quak and De Koster (2007) used four different variables with respect to distribution
costs: number of round trips, number of vehicles, total travel distance and total time.
Hence, the number of predictions is multiplied by four. An ‘access window’ time
(applied in many European cities) implies access to the city centre for freight carri-
ers only during specified periods (e.g. 6am-9am), the so-called ‘access window’.
Many carriers and large retail chains have seen their transportation costs rise as a
result of the growing number of cities with these time limits. Problems arise when
some hypotheses are confirmed and others are disconfirmed; or when, if within
an hypothesis several independent observation statements are included, some

106 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 predictions concur, and others don’t. The use of rules of thumb (‘the majority of the
hypotheses are confirmed, so we can conclude that the theory is confirmed’ or ‘if
two predictions are refuted, we can conclude that the hypothesis is refuted’) is a
worse strategy than a continued search for the reasons why certain predictions are
confirmed and others are refuted. A case study in which, during the research proc-
ess, subtleties of this kind can be included, and in which perceptions of participants
are also monitored, provides more information than a standardised survey.

If at the start of the analysis one can imagine some competing interpretations,
and if one succeeds in moulding these into alternative predictions, one’s position
is considerably strengthened when some of these predictions are refuted. If we are
lucky enough to be able to refute all interpretations except the one based on the
intervention, it becomes difficult to describe the data otherwise than as resulting
from the intervention. Our position is strengthened still more if we succeed in
replicating this result in other cases. Apart from this, the suggestion has its restric-
tions: we have to keep in mind the famous series of ‘alternative interpretations’
presented by Cook and Campbell (1979), and only seldom shall we be able to
definitely refute all but one of the interpretations. In other words, the guide to
follow reads: expand the theory as far as possible; deduce predictions by expand-
ing the number of dependent variables that are expected to be influenced by or,
explicitly, not influenced by, the intervention. The more independent predictions
are verified, and the more predictions from competing theories are refuted, the
stronger our hypothesis regarding the influence of the intervention stands. The
absence of a large number of cases can be compensated for by a richness of predic-
tions from our theory. It is another illustration of the principle of increasing the
number of measurement/observation points in case studies.

BOX 5.4

Boskma and Herweijer (1988) refer to a study of Heikema van der Kloet (1987)
that deals with testing a public policy theory (implicitly) applied by local munici-
palities to legitimise the expansion of statutes regarding mandates and the
delegation of authority. This theory leads to the following expectations:
® after the transfer of authority to civil servants the number of items on the
agenda during council meetings decreases
e the engagement and the motivation of chief civil servants increases
e rulings and decisions are given more quickly
e rulings are more often given which later appear not to have the agreement
of the manager concerned.
(Continued)

How to Enrich Your Case Study Data? 107

 (Continued)
When, in a municipality in which the delegation of authority was recently introduced
or extended, these four phenomena occur, enough ground exists to positively
evaluate the policy theory. If, moreover, in municipalities in which the delegation
of authority was recently submitted to stricter rules, reverse effects are mani-
fested, our position is all the more strengthened. Next, other communities can be
selected to replicate the study. The results may also be replicated, or the research
design can be adjusted to include some alternative explanations. If these are
refuted, we once again feel stronger about our original explanation.

5.6 Using several gradations of the independent variables

Even with a small number of cases scientific progress can be obtained by searching
for more differences on the independent variable than the usual dichotomy. The
general idea is that the stronger the independent variable, the more, or the faster,
change in the dependent variable is to be expected. In a laboratory, our task would
be to design a study in which the independent variable is characterised by a series
of fine-grained values, and to formulate predictions in accordance with the strength
of the independent variable (the relationship between the amount of medication
in mg and health improvement is a simplified example). In a case study, we may
sometimes dispose of several cases that were or that are subjected to different
values on the independent variable in their natural context.

5.7 Diversifying methods of collecting data

Increasing the number of observations can be effected by using several methods of

collecting data, for instance observation, interviewing and documentary analysis.
Often the term ‘triangulation’ is used to indicate this practice of using several data
sources.* The opportunity to compare subjective data with objective data (e.g. with
respect to the time budget or the availability of material resources) should be wel-
comed. In this way, we have an opportunity for control. But it does not work without
confronting a dilemma.
With every application of this principle we have to ask for the researcher’s expecta-
tions and intentions. If sources converge, one is generally inclined to accept this result

*Some scientists apply this label for other purposes as well, such as using more than one theory
(‘theory triangulation’), more than one researcher (‘researcher triangulation’), or more than one
method (Patton 2002). The common idea behind all these procedures is, of course, the enlarge-
ment of the set of degrees of freedom. It would be better to restrict the meaning to ‘triangulation
of sources’, and use other labels in a more concise way for the rest (see Appendix 3).

108 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

without further questioning. But if different data sources lead to diverging results, how
is this to be interpreted? Should we be disappointed about the result because we
interpret it as unreliable, or should we accept these diverging results enthusiastically
because an easy explanation for the divergence between, let’s say, interviewing and
observation, or between objective and subjective data, presents itself?
From the minutes of a meeting one may infer that the management of a team con-
tinues to support a certain innovation. But when interviewing people, several indi-
viduals express their opinion that the management frustrates their efforts. This
divergence prompts new research and may lead to discoveries about a lack of com-
munication, or the existence of too many independently acting subgroups. If sources do
not converge, it is necessary to continue the study in order to deepen understanding.
The dilemma we are faced with often presents itself in reading case studies based
on data from different groups of stakeholders. Sampling ideas and perceptions
from different groups of informants is one of the clear advantages of a case study.
We often pursue an explanation of differences in opinions and interpretations of
different groups of stakeholders. Within this frame, we feel satisfied in actually find-
ing those different opinions. But if the researcher finds a convergence of opinions,
(s)he is tempted to change perspective, and interpret this convergence as proof of
‘reliable results’. To prevent ambiguity, it is necessary to indicate the interpretations
with respect to contrasting results beforehand. With other words, try to be as pre-
cise as possible about the use of mixed methods beforehand. If possible, formulate
expectations (hypotheses!) about confirming or contrasting results.
Creswell (in Bergman 2008: 72) mentions five ways to address contradictory
findings:

1) as a means of uncovering new theories or extending existing theories

2) leading to the collection of additional data
3) leading to the reanalysis of the collected data
4) using data as a springboard for a new inquiry
5) giving priority to one form of data over the other.

With respect to point 5, it does not seem to be a very constructive idea to state a
priori that the validity and reliability of one kind ofdata is better than it is for the
other kind. +s?
:

5.8 Diversifying researchers

Another way of enriching case study data is to have the data collected and/or
analysed by several researchers, or even to have the report written by independent
researchers. This can be understood in distinct ways. First, it may simply mean that
we enlarge our research capacity — that more cases are tackled and that each
researcher tackles his/her own cases. Increasing the number of cases strengthens
reliability. Comparability of approaches is required. Room for subjective biases is

How to Enrich Your Case Study Data? 109

larger than for an interviewer in a standardised survey, or for an experimental
researcher in a laboratory. Training and mutual criticism (and a protocol and diary
that one has to commit oneself to) are necessary. With a relatively large number
of cases, and random distribution among researchers, there is a greates possibility
for multilevel analysis. We can study whether researcher A arrives at another pic-
ture, based on her cases, than researcher B over his cases, where, in view of random
allocation, a similar picture could be expected.
Second, working with several researchers facilitates working with more people
per case. In general, this principle is a good idea because a ‘lone researcher’ not
infrequently develops particular biases, that, however, can be repaired in time if there
is an opportunity to be corrected by a partner or a team of researchers. This does not
mean that everything is done together. Rather, the work, for instance the interview-
ing, is distributed among researchers, and ‘in the evening’ the collected material, as
well as the interpretations and explanations, can be debated. In another approach,
roles can be distributed: A does the interviewing, B analyses documents. The points
of view of the distinct researchers may be seen as ‘data points’ that after ample dis-
cussion may be reduced to — hopefully — reliable and valid data. A ‘luxurious’ variant
is putting one researcher apart by excluding him/her from fieldwork obligations and
reserving him/her the role of ‘sparring partner’ or, more precisely, as devil’s advocate,
to counter the interpretations the field researchers attach to their data.
Concerning the individual researcher's biases, sooner or later each case researcher
develops the idea that data converges. New data adds little to the material already
collected, and the jigsaw pieces begin to fall together. This is a very general experi-
ence that needs to be mistrusted if it emerges relatively early in the research process.
General methodological principles, such as ‘always try to refute your own ideas’ and
‘strive for counter-examples’, are psychologically difficult to realise for the indi-
vidual researcher. Critical remarks made by others, or rather competing interpreta-
tions put forward by colleagues, can play a very useful role in preventing premature
closure. The same holds, of course, for the use of different data sources.
Third, only when researchers do exactly the same work (replication of an inter-
view is impossible, but analysis of a protocol or documents is perfectly possible),
and results can be compared, may one view the researchers as each other’s replica-
tions, comparing different ‘measuring rods’ measuring the same object. Only then
are we able to use strong methods of analysis and draw firm conclusions. Such a
luxurious situation is, however, very rare in view of the budgets normally available
for case study research.

5.9 Presenting results to participants and

using their opinions as extra data

Having the opportunity to present research findings to the informants, and in this
way confront them with their descriptions and explanations (keeping in mind that

110 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

the latter are not infallible), provides researchers with the ultimate opportunity to
check the validity of their interpretations. In doing so, in an informal way, the
number of data points is automatically enlarged. A welcome situation occurs if
the researcher, on the basis of preliminary results, is able to phrase predictions for
the future. However, the side-effects of involving researched persons in this way
should not be underestimated. The researcher is in a vulnerable position. Research
results, including the central causal model, have to be worded in very clear language.
Informants in general are pleased to co-operate as a research assistant in this way
and to be valued as such, although a small financial reward may also help a lot.
There is also a learning opportunity here. A causal model is not infrequently
composed of variables that originate from different perspectives, each one of which
is supported by different groups of stakeholders. Presenting the composite end
result to all participants can have a very healthy influence-on biased opinions.
In qualitative research, the presentation of research results to participants, at what-
ever the stage of the project, is called ‘member checking’. Presenting preliminary
findings to informants is a subtle form of it. Naturally, there are limitations in doing
this. If we do not speak the language of the informants, or if they are too young or too
old or do not possess a thorough understanding of the reasons for the study, member
checking is practically impossible. In addition, just because researchers give inform-
ants an opportunity to comment does not mean ‘the members are always right’. The
central idea is to establish divergences of opinions — and to interpret them — in
different groups of stakeholders. Its purpose is not ‘to find one truth’.

BOX 5.5

Miles and Huberman (1994: 165-71) combine the making of predictions with
involving participants in their research. They developed a rather subtle proce-
dure in this respect:
During the analysis the researcher formulates some specific predictions about
how the social process under study will develop in let’s say, six months, time. The
researcher also develops arguments that would counter these predictions. The
researcher keeps these documents to him/herself.”
After six months, several potential informants receive two envelopes. In the first
envelope is a form that defines the variable, gives the predictions and asks the
informant to judge the adequacy of the prediction. The informant is also asked
to write down the most important factors in his/her mind contributing to the (non-)
adequacy of the prediction. Only after that, the informant opens the second
envelope. It contains the prediction plus the arguments that were formulated
earlier by the researchers. The informant is asked to rate the pertinence of each
factor in accounting for the actual situation, and to explain the reasoning behind
(Continued)

How to Enrich Your Case Study Data? 111

 (Continued)

that rating. The motive behind this two-phased questioning is obviously not to
influence the informant by an externally generated framework, but to detect
whether more contributing factors are at work than had been assumed. This seems
to be an excellent, although cumbersome, procedure for validating predictions
about future events.

5.10 Conclusions

The concept of degrees of freedom is used to elaborate the well-known criticism of

case studies: ‘too little data, as a consequence of which the researcher is confronted
with a relative abundance of interpretations and applicable theories without being
able to select one of these’. In this chapter, we outlined several ways to extend the
degrees of freedom and thus enrich our case study research. Some research designs
that are explicitly rich in information include a systematic extension of observa-
tions over time. Ultimately, this led to the tradition of ‘single-subject research’.
Others are characterised by embedded designs, that is to say designs that allow an
extensive, quantitative study of sub-units. Other procedures were also discussed.
Careful research into the possibilities for increasing the richness of data can con-
tribute to the usefulness of case studies within the set of research strategies.

EXERCISES

5.1 With the research question of Exercise 4.2, how can you increase the
number of ‘data measurement points’ (and the number of degrees of
freedom) in your study?

KEY TERMS

degrees of freedom using several gradations of the independent variables

increasing the number of diversifying methods of collecting data
measurement points in time
introducing sub-units diversifying independent researchers/observers
increasing the number of presenting results to participants in the system under
cases study
increasing the number of
predictions

112 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 How to Analyse Your Data?

Having collected the data, we are certainly not yet ready to write the final report.
How are these data going to be analysed in order to be used? In this chapter,
section 6.1 tackles the differences between data analysis in case studies and
data analysis in extensive research. In section 6.2, we discuss five strands that
play a major role in case study data analysis: the ‘Yin’ tradition, ‘qualitative’
approaches, the ‘Miles and Huberman’ techniques, time-series analysis and
Ragin’s logic. In section 6.3 we suggest a possible analysis of the data collected
for the example presented in Chapter 4. In section 6.4 a summary and several
conclusions are presented.

6.1 Introduction

The human understanding, from its peculiar nature, easily supposes a greater degree
of order and equality in things than it really finds. When any proposition has been
laid down, the human understanding forces everything else to add fresh support and
confirmation. It is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human understanding to be
more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives. (Francis Bacon’s First of
the Idols of the Tribe, 1863)'

The basic problem of data analysis is the same for all types of research: to reduce
a huge amount of data in order to obtain an answer to the research question. In
extensive research, data consists of numerical scorés on precise, pre-coded, varia-
bles, They can be neatly arranged in a data matrix with, generally, variables in the
columns and respondents in the rows. In the major part of intensive research, such
as a case study, the initial data sources are field documents, interview transcripts
and observation protocols. Is it possible to use the general idea of a data matrix for
intensive research as well? Yes, but with some important annotations.
First, guided by the research question we have to split the information contained
in the data sources and arrange it in parts. These parts refer only to a certain extent

'Bacon, Francis (1863). The New Organon. Boston: Taggard and Thompson. After the Latin edition
of 1620, Novum Organum. I. Pars Contemplative.
to what one could call variables. Some of them, such as background variables, could
of course have been pre-coded at the start. Variables expressing appreciation and
activities are often suitable to pre-code as well. But most of the data refers to sen-
tences, abbreviations, quotes, valuations, non-numerical symbols and short verbal
notions. Next, these verbal notions are submitted to several rounds of reduction and
abstraction. A set of simplifying categories can probably be established by some trial
and error. In general, no clear criteria are available beforehand to distribute verbal
answers over categories. One should not immediately push verbal answers in a (too)
simple coding scheme. By coding qualitative material afterwards, we keep the door
open to finally dispose of a system of categories that is as close as possible to reality.
But compared to pre-coding we should realise that the problem is only delayed.
Second, most case studies possess a more or less exploratory character, and not
all cells of an imaginable data matrix can be filled in a systematic and comparable
way. As a consequence of the lack of uniformity in data collection, the data matrix
usually contains many missing values.
Finally, contrary to extensive research, data collection and data analysis are not
sharply separated in time, but go hand in hand in a permanently changing order.
A data matrix in qualitative research has, accordingly, not the clear position of a water-
shed between data collection and data analysis as it has in quantitative research.
The crucial phase is, of course, the interpretation of the results and drawing
conclusions. For a reader who is used to procedures such as scale construction,
variance, factor and regression analysis and many other quantitative techniques,
the steps taken by an ‘intensive researcher’ may seem to be rather meagre. Of
course, the following principle works just as well for quantitative as for qualitative
research: determine, guided by the research question, the relevant concepts and varia-
bles, and reduce the material in such a way that easy-to-handle figures or score pat-
terns result that serve the solution of the research question. The precision of qualitative
data is, however, much less than the precision of quantitative data. The other side
of the coin is that the ‘intensive researcher’ stays closer to the original data, and
pays considerably more attention to a valid interpretation of the material than his/
her quantifying colleague generally does.
But researchers should remember that in all types of analysis things that are not
equal have to be aggregated into ‘equivalence classes’. Written answers, for instance,
have to be expressed in a restricted number of response categories or equivalence
classes, say five or seven. It would be an illusion, whichever course in analysis is
taken, to assume that no details are lost in that process.

6.2 Five traditions

Research literature in the field of case study data analysis is rather diversely
oriented, depending on the definition of ‘case study’. Roughly, we distinguish five
traditions:

114 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

1 Analysis of data collected in the field of changing organisations, according to Yin.
2 Analysis of data collected in one of the qualitative traditions, especially the grounded
theory approach of Strauss and Corbin.
3 Data analysis and presentation according to the work of Miles and Huberman.
4 Time-series analysis.
5 Data analysis according to Ragin’s method, using Boolean logic and fuzzy-set theory.

It would be a misunderstanding to assume that, after designing the research project

and collecting data, the researcher is free to select one of the above-mentioned
strands of analysis. Actually, the first two as well as the last one are strongly bound
to a specific conceptualisation of case studies, as is indicated by attaching the
authors’ names to each of these strands. There is barely any common ground. Only
the presentational techniques recommended by Miles and Huberman can be
applied in the context of different kinds of research approaches.

1 Research in the field of changing organisations according to Yin

Case study methodology in this frame is mainly inspired by the work of one
author — compare Yin (1984/2003), Yin (1993/2003) and Yin (2004) as well as
many of his contributions to scientific journals in the field of organisation the-
ory. Yin’s approach fits the empirical-analytical tradition completely. This
author is almost exclusively oriented towards applied research. We can be rela-
tively brief about his approach. Yin himself is praiseworthily succinct in his
texts — his strength is in confronting the reader with many examples. He
emphasises the necessity for the researcher to be quite clear about choosing a
theory-oriented general strategy for analysis, or developing a descriptive frame-
work for analysis when there are no theoretical propositions available. Working
on the basis of theoretical propositions is, of course, to be preferred. Yin distin-
guishes five different dominant modes of analysis: pattern matching, explanation
building, time-series analysis, logic models and cross-case synthesis. We will discuss
each one here.

Pattern matching is characteristic of a testing approach. This strategy boils down

to comparing an empirically found score pattern on a number of variables with a
predicted theory-based pattern: on such-and-such variables the scores have to be
such-and-such (when using more cases, an alternative pattern has to be predicted
for some variables). Several data points are assumed (scores on dependent and
independent variables when dealing with explanatory problems, on ‘descriptive
variables’ when dealing with descriptive problems). Using non-equivalent depend-
ent variables is in fact one of the specific strategies for increasing the number of
data points. Pattern matching can, however, be used for eliminating one or more
rival explanations, by introducing several independent variables and testing the
empirical consequences of each of them. If one wants to apply ‘pattern matching’

How to Analyse Your Data? 115

as a technique for analysis, one needs to be aware of this choice beforehand
because it has repercussions for the stages of design and data collection (deduce
at the start as many relations between variables as possible from the selected
model and from rival explanations, and measure those variables). Data analysis as
such is standard. The larger the set of variables contained in the predictions on
the central model, the more states of the world are excluded, and the more
informative the resulting theory or model is, that is if the predictions are not
refuted.

Explanation building is, of course, only applicable in studying problems of causality.

It is typical of the modern mix of exploration and testing in social research. After
adjusting, on the basis of some initial hypotheses, a model or theory to the first
case, it is tested and readjusted when applied to subsequent cases. Explanation
building is characterised by a series of repetitions. The emphasis may be on testing.
Conceived in this way, explanation building is a special form of pattern matching.
If, however, the emphasis is on an exploratory approach (the ‘generation of theory’),
it comes close to Strauss and Corbin’s procedures (see below).

Time-series analysis can be applied in a testing or in an exploratory mode. In some

research projects, a number of measurement results over time are available, such
as with traffic accidents in region R. When at moment M a policy measure (let’s
say a speed limit) is introduced, the emerging pattern can be inspected to see
whether there is an effect of that policy. Different regions or countries can then
be compared. In this way, analysis — does the pattern differ from a random fluc-
tuation pattern? — boils down to a form of pattern matching. Several dependent
variables may also be used, and predictions specifying different effects of the inde-
pendent variables can be tested. But time-series analysis is also applicable in
another sense. Even with only a few measurements over time it is sometimes pos-
sible to establish consecutive phases in a developmental process. Some events
must always occur before other events, with the reverse sequence being impossi-
ble; or some events will only occur in certain specified conditions; or there is
always a time lag between certain events, etc. Results from earlier studies such
as this can be formulated beforehand, or can be generated on the first case and
then tested and adjusted on other cases. It is one of the great advantages of case
studies that cases can be followed up over time.

Logic models refer to the application of pattern matching on a time series of meas-
urement points in evaluation research. In evaluation research, it is useful to specify
beforehand the sequence of events and causal links, starting with several measure-
ments before the policy intervention is implemented. In empirical research, this
predicted sequence may be compared with the actual sequence of events. Models
may be applied to the level of macro-units, organisations or individuals. In this way,
a young person can be followed in order to develop a sketch of risk-producing

116 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

factors and circumstances (risk, for instance, with respect to become a drug-user
or a criminal offender) as well as phases in the process of becoming addicted.

Cross-case synthesis. In a multiple-case study, several additional problems and tech-

niques of analysis come to the fore. We already mentioned the alternatives of car-
rying out the case studies simultaneously or sequentially. The latter approach
provides the opportunity to adjust research procedures, But in the case of cross-
case synthesis, Yin is thinking of problems relating to combining several independ-
ent case studies and perhaps cases spread accoss a period of time. In the world of
experimental and survey research the label attached to this kind of very specific
studies is meta-analysis (see section 7.4). Of overriding importance is finding a
common frame, a common feature or a common central process (the phenome-
non) in these scattered case studies, and of course — it goes without saying in the
meta analysis of experiments and surveys — the presence of sufficient information
on many characteristics of these case studies.

Yin does not offer a cookbook of methods, but he does indicate the main direc-
tions to follow in analysing data, while emphasising the correspondence between
extensive and intensive approaches in basic methodology. All in all, Yin’s digres-
sions prompt us to continuously reflect on some basic distinctions in the design
and analysis of research:

e the distinction between research questions of a descriptive and an explanatory character

e the distinction between a testing and an exploratory approach
e the presence or absence of data about nested sub-units
e the presence or absence of repeated measurement data on the same units
e the presence or absence of multiple cases.

2 Several qualitative models of analysis

Within this category we corral together symbolic-interactionist, phenomenological,
ethnomethodological and many other approaches. Anthropological field research
may also be positioned under this label. Sources for symbolic-interactionist research
include Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Stratiss and Corbin (1998); for phenome-
nological research see Taylor and Bogdan (1998) and for the ethnomethodological
approach, see Silverman (1993). More generally oriented to field research is
Bryman and Burgess (1994). Still broader in its coverage is Bryman and Burgess
(1999). Denzin and Lincoln (1994/2000) offer an extensive overview of qualita-
tive research orientations, although these authors do not specifically cover analysis
techniques. These techniques should not be considered as the same; there are
extensive differences that exist between them. Within ethnomethodology, for
instance, conversation analysis is well known. In this tradition, transcriptions of
conversations are coded and analysed in a very precise way, using many conventions

How to Analyse Your Data? 117

and rules, including pauses, intonations, etc. Another tradition is protocol analysis,
which is often used in educational research and in cognitive psychology (analysis
of thinking-aloud protocols).? In the symbolic-interactionist tradition, the best
known approach is ‘grounded theory’. Some of its central characteristics are:

* a rejection of thinking in terms of variables and instead a preference for holism

e data collection and data analysis are not separated in time
e insights develop as a result of a constant comparison between cases
e there is a strong emphasis on an inductive, exploratory approach: researchers start with
as little theory as possible and generate, during the research process, a theory that is
grounded in the observations*
¢ the assumption that in studying a case, one or a few central concepts ‘arise from the
data’
‘theory’ refers to the elaboration of aspects and relations of a central concept. No dif-
ference is made between concepts and theories in the usual way, and nor is the terminol-
ogy of independent and dependent variables used
e a higher level of abstraction can be reached by going from ‘substantive theories’ via
the study of different substantive fields to ‘formal theories’ (also known as ‘bottom up’
analysis).

Most applications refer to the analysis of transcripts of interviews. Often, areas

of research are ‘difficult’, such as interviews with married couples who cannot
have children, or interviews with ethnic immigrants who have no legal status.
Alternatively, raw material may consist of ‘letters to the editor’, newspaper clip-
pings, or angry comments on a television programme, photographs, films, etc.
Generally, each piece of information is divided into fragments (often quotations),

*Conversation analysis is described in Ten Have (1998). For the analysis of thinking-aloud protocols
the reader is referred to, for instance, Ericsson and Simon (1984). An overview of modern methods
for analysing verbal data is provided by Popping (1999).
*Glaser and Strauss (1967) is undoubtedly the most famous and well-known book on qualitative
research methods. Chapter 3, on theoretical selection, especially deserves attention in the context
of case study research. Strauss and Corbin (1998) provides an updated and elaborated text on
many aspects of symbolic-interactionist fieldwork. A wide range of applications is to be found
in the companion volume Strauss and Corbin (1997). An introduction to qualitative methods in
general is provided by Taylor and Bogdan (1998). In the United Kingdom, Bryman and Burgess
(1999) is a four-volume set that brings together all of the major topics and issues in qualitative
research, including epistemological, ethical and cultural issues, as well as information on the col-
lection and interpretation of data. Bryman and Burgess (1994) is a general textbook on qualitative
data analysis. An extensive survey of qualitative methods is offered by Denzin and Lincoln
(1994/2000). In this massive volume, the heterogeneity of the contributions, each elaborating a
more or less different approach, is overwhelming. Other texts on qualitative analysis are Weitzman
and Miles (1995), Fielding and Lee (1998), Kuckartz (2001), Richards (2005), Bazeley (2007),
Lewins and Silver (2007) and Gibbs (2007). The older texts are becoming rapidly outdated.
‘Most authors rather naively share this tradition. Only sporadically is reference made to the footnote
(Glaser & Strauss 1976), in which it is explicitly denied that the researcher confronts reality as a
tabula rasa.

118 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

and each fragment is given a code (and sometimes more than one code) a process
which is called ‘open coding’. The aim of the code is to capture the meaning of
the fragment. These initial codes may be ‘in vivo’, that is to say, for instance, simply
giving the label ‘mother’ where the word ‘mother’ is used in the quotation, or they
may be a little more abstract, such as ‘youth friend’, or ‘perception of the quality
of parental care’. In the next phase, called ‘axial coding’, the initial codes are col-
lected, mutually related and ordered into an analytical framework. The aims are to
reduce the number of codes, to find overarching codes, to relate codes to each
other by developing a ‘coding tree’, and if necessary to add new codes. The codes
are applied to new material to test whether the developed system is adequate.
Analysis by a computer program provides many possibilities for recoding, combin-
ing codes, counting codes, subsuming codes under more general codes, and so on.
Finally, in a process called ‘selective coding’, the aim is to.find a name for the cat-
egory that seems to have a central position in the network of relations, such as
‘coping with infertility’, or ‘adjustment strategies’. It is usually called a substantive
theory. Generalising over different substantial fields may lead to a more general,
formal, theory. Applying the label ‘theory’ where a type or a typology, a process,
an aspect or variable is concerned, is typical for most qualitative research.
There is, however, a lack of standardisation in software. One reason, of course,
is that computer analysis is much more complex than in quantitative research
because results of data collection are not expressed in numbers, or in easy and
unambiguous nominal categories. It is a procedure that is vulnerable to subjective
biases, and it is time-consuming to group words, expressions, non-numeric sym-
bols, pictures and so on into homogeneous categories (the next step, assigning a
code to each category, is less demanding). Furthermore, qualitative research itself
is far from homogeneous. Many different strands can fall under the label of quali-
tative research, such as symbolic-interactionism, ethnography, phenomenology,
ethnomethodology, conversation analysis, parts of content analysis, and many
others. Most of these traditions use computer programs for analysis that are some-
times adequate for one specific tradition, but are less suitable for others. Finally,
the field is developing fast and in unpredictable directions, a consequence of which
is that there is still a need for codification of procedures and computer programs.
The lack of standardisation may lead to the good’but impractical advice to use
more than one program in your research; bécause while program A is very good in
function X, it does not perform function Y, which can however be done by
program B. Potential users invariably need a consumer guide to find their way
around the maze of program packages. Within the scope of this book, it is not pos-
sible to provide the reader with a comparative overview. Besides, it would not be
very useful because of the fast developments in the field. We often see that in a
university faculty, for one reason or another, a specific program is available and
that all qualitative data analysis takes place with the help of this specific program,
while in another faculty a different program is used for comparable data. Prices
generally prohibit the individual user from acquiring a copy for private use, and
licence contracts, such as those of SPSS and SAS, are very rare.

How to Analyse Your Data? 119

 English language packages (we mention the latest versions known in mid 2009)
are, for instance, QSR Nvivo 8.0, ATLAS.ti 6.0, MAXQDA, The Ethnograph 6.0
and C-I-SAID. A well-known Dutch program is KWALITAN 5.0 (for information,
see www.kwalitan.net). The ATLAS and KWALITAN programs are grounded in
the symbolic-interactionism tradition. Almost all programs are data-driven, and
in this sense inductive. Statements in advertising material such as ‘relating text
fragments leads you to the discovery of the texture of the data’; ‘visual theory
building with the semantic network editor allows you to make relationships between
emerging concepts visible’ describe the authors’ intentions. Qualitative data analysis
is primarily exploratory. All these programs use, as a primary database, texts such
as interview and observation protocols. Some of them handle text data as well as
graphical, geographical, audio and video data. Applications are found in many
disciplines. As an illustration, we mention in the health sciences the analysis of
X-ray images, tomograms and microscoped samples, and in criminology the combined
use of letters, fingerprints and photographs for analysis. .
What are the salient features of most of these programs?

1 Primary documents are scanned and entered. Primary documents would be interview
protocols, articles, books, films, observation protocols, and so on.
2 Each document split into sections. A section can be a paragraph, a sentence, part of a
sentence or a word.
3 Each section is assigned one or more codes. Normally, a code is a label, or a central
idea that characterises, or can be found in, the section.
4 Codes are memorised and collected in what one might call a codebook, which is
entered in the project file as well.
5 Steps 1-3 are repeated for all primary documents.
6 During the process the investigator can write so-called ‘memos’. A memo is an account
of procedures used, sudden insights, theoretical interpretations, methodological consid-
erations, etc.
7 The primary documents, as well as the assigned codes and memos, together constitute
the project file.

The ‘easy’ analysis can now start. Frequency tables for the codes can be made;
documents can be compared on the frequency of codes; tabulations can be con-
structed for the frequency of combinations of codes; these analyses can be done
for one special section or for a subset of sections, for the complete group of
respondents or for the females only, and so on.
All this may seem simple, but two significant problems may have already
occurred to the reader:

1 How to ‘segment’ or ‘divide’ your primary document into segments?

2 How to code segments?

Regarding the first point, no general point can be made about segmenting. It
depends entirely on the raw material and the research question. It will be easier to

120 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

demarcate topics in the case of interview reports, for example, as the topics
constituting the segments will seem obvious.
Regarding the second point, coding is rather complicated because it serves sev-
eral functions. To start with, by assigning a code, a segment can be identified.
Identifying segments by means of a ‘source tag’ serves the purpose of efficiently
storing and retrieving the original material. Second, depending on the research ques-
tion, codes are assigned that characterise the segment in terms of content, presence or
absence of a word or an idea, and so on. Sometimes this is easy (e.g. mentioning
or not mentioning financial motives in an interview referring to the choice of an
academic study). Sometimes it requires the gradual construction, during the initial
stages of coding, of a dictionary or a thesaurus. Essentially, the function of this type
of program is comparable to the use of foreign language thesauri and lists of syno-
nyms in word processors. In interviews on political attitudes, the researcher might
wish to replace all the interviewee’s negative qualifications of politics on a certain
topic by the label ‘rejects politics’. In a case such as this, one needs to read at least
a few dozen interview reports in order to compose a more or less complete list of
negative qualifications. After adding a new word, the computer automatically
codes all consecutive primary documents containing this word. In some research
institutes, for example in the field of communication research, there are existing
dictionaries or thesauri. The coding process sometimes requires careful reading
and comparing (e.g. whether, in segments of observation protocols of playing chil-
dren, a child expresses ‘caring for others’ in his/her behaviour). With respect to
this second function of coding, we are already halfway towards more advanced
types of analysis.
However, coding may serve a third function, which leads us into the field of
advanced analysis. The content of a segment is often initially expressed in a code
at a low level of abstraction, and may gradually be replaced, or complemented,
by a code at a higher level of abstraction. For example: rain/precipitation/weather/
climate. This way of coding allows us to make connections between codes on dif-
ferent levels of abstraction; to develop higher-order classifications and categories;
to formulate propositions or statements, implying a conceptual structure that fits
the data, and/or to test such propositions to determine whether they apply. This
process of abstraction is instrumental in constructing (grounded) theories, that
is to say theories that are grounded in the observations, especially in the programs,
inspired by the ‘grounded theory approach’.
Results of qualitative data analysis may be expressed in frequency counts,
displaying words in their contexts, but also in graphic displays of networks con-
taining the developed concepts (labels, codes) and their mutual relations. The
relationships may portray several types: ‘belongs to’, ‘leads to’, ‘is a kind of’, ‘follows’,
and so on. It is very important to be precise in this respect, especially as the
use of labels for ‘variables’, ‘values’, ‘causality’ and ‘correlation’ in some strands
of qualitative research strongly differs from the usual labels in quantitative
(mainstream) research.

How to Analyse Your Data? 121

 Nowadays, analysing data more or less according to the principles of ‘grounded
theory’ is by far the most popular method in social research in dealing with a
restricted number of open or semi-structured interviews, let’s say between five and
50. The analysis is not focused on the description and explanation of each of a
number of cases (the interviewed persons). One of the key concepts of grounded
theory is called ‘constant comparison’, indicating that its methods are focused on
the development of a cases-overarching (grounded) theory.
Whatever one may think of an approach such as this, it clearly has an explora-
tory character. One of the main objections of the procedure is that is does not
reveal the researcher's subjective ideas and pre-theoretical notions when applying
codes. Another shortcoming is intrinsically related to an exclusively exploratory
approach: what is the relation to many extant social and behavioural theories,
developed in ‘mainstream research’? Strauss and Corbin (1997) undoubtedly start,
as all researchers, with some theoretical notions in mind, but they try to be as open
as possible to what they observe in the field, and to let ‘emerging’ theoretical net-
works develop. The theory is ‘grounded’ in the data. As such, this tradition has
undoubtedly enhanced existing analytical techniques. However, research into the
range of the results, or research into what is known already, and which precise
hypotheses are still to be tested, is almost completely lacking in this tradition. By
applying what has been said in this section to case studies, one should not forget
that it is only part of the data that are analysed with these techniques and
programs — and mostly written data at that. Collecting and analysing audio and
video materials is possible sometimes. In principle, it can be analysed according to
the same principles and techniques. But the real assets of a case study — using,
combining and analysing different types of longitudinal data (sources) in order to
answer the research questions — generally are not exploited in sufficient depth
when applying some ‘qualitative data analysis program’ alone.

3 Miles and Huberman’s approach (1984, 1994)

This approach focuses on representational techniques, not on strategies for
analysis, or on a general methodology in the classic European tradition. Miles and
Huberman’s Qualitative Data Analysis (1994) is the most frequently cited source
in dealing with the analysis of case study data. These authors, who designate them-
selves as ‘soft-nosed logical positivists’ in the first edition of their book, adopt an
approach that cannot be subsumed under one of the other existing traditions, but
constitutes a tradition in itself. Characteristically, they transfer thinking in terms of
matrices, graphic representations and tables, as used in quantitative research, to
the analysis and reporting of qualitative data. They suggest that all data collected
within the frame of a case study (by way of several sources, such as documents,
informants, observation) is laid down — in principle - in a temporary ‘monster-
matrix’. The cells in this matrix are not filled with numbers, however, but with
written notions of various kinds: quotations, abbreviations, acronyms, etc. Inevitably,

122 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

this matrix comprises an impossible format — Miles and Huberman recommend
making use of a large wall or floor! For these authors, analysis consists of summa-
rising parts of the monster-matrix into clear representations (called ‘displays’), in
which, however, still no numerical scores are used, but rather words or other short
written symbols. To this end, they use two kinds of representations:

¢ Tables. The entries to the tables are formed by informants (mostly as rows, and often
already arranged in groups, for instance according to their position in the organisation
studied), by topics or variables, by points in time, by cases (if more than one case is
being dealt with), by events or critical incidents, by pairs of interacting persons, or by
whatever other set is deemed relevant to represent. In one or more steps these tables can
be turned, mirrored, compressed, etc.
e Networks of squares, rectangles, circles, etc., connected to each other by one- or
double-sided arrows or by common straight or curved lines. The usual plans of organisa-
tions, but also causal models, flowcharts, networks of persons or institutes, decision
trees, etc. are included in this category.

How is all of this is going to be put into practice? By copying of parts of the
monster-matrix, and by subsequent cut-and-paste work? Evidently, since the start
of computer age, better alternatives exist. Yet, it should not be forgotten that a
monitor screen shows us only a very small part, and ‘paper’ matrices are still to be
preferred for overviewing a large and complex amount of data. On the other hand,
the same demand for clarity prompts us to emphasise the necessity of transforming
written information into information that can be more easily handled, that is to
say into clear variables and numerical, at least simple symbolic, scores. Miles and
Huberman offer hundreds of examples of data matrices, tables and diagrams. On
first sight, it seems to be curious that in such a large publication on ‘data analysis’
the emphasis exclusively focuses on the construction of ‘well-arranged representa-
tions’ as the core of data analysis. Also, in quantitative research, reducing the initial
data matrix and compressing the representation of information is the core of the
matter. The difference with qualitative data is that, because of the lack of the
infinite possibilities that numeric language allows, it is very difficult to present an
overview of techniques of data analysis in a systematic way. We can therefore
criticise Miles and Huberman in that, although they“descibe the many avenues of
data analysis that are available, they focus’exclusively on the ‘aim of representa-
tion’ instead of finding a ‘solution of the research problem’. In doing so, they create
the wrong impression that case study data analysis, by definition, is at most
exploratory — one can do X, but also Y, or even Z — and that the end result is often
quite different from the original research aim.

4 Time-series analysis

The analysis of data based on repeated measurements of a small number of precise

variables originates in the health sciences and psychology. Studying the effects of a

How to Analyse Your Data? 123

medication or intervention by monitoring a patient or a client on some important
health variables in a experimental setting is the core of this type of research. In
earlier times it was labelled ‘N=1 studies’. The procedures that are followed are of
a highly statistical nature. Applications of statistical models are widespread nowa-
days in the technical sciences, as well as in business, economics and in many other
fields. As discussed in Chapter 1, in this book we do not focus on this specific
interpretation of the term ‘case studies’. It is mentioned here only for the sake of
completeness. A classic text is Box and Jenkins (1976). Other textbooks on this
subject include Kratochwill (1978), MacLeary and Hay (1980), Gottman (1981),
Chatfield (1996), and Brockwell and Davis (2003).

5 Ragin’s approach
This approach was briefly discussed in Chapter 4, so we do not elaborate on this
topic in this chapter. Applications are mostly in the political sciences— its field of
origin. However, there are no special reasons why implementation in other fields
would not be possible. But one should keep in mind that the number of cases
should not fall below a certain minimum. The exact nature of this minimum
depends on the number of variables to be included in the search for causality. One
should not overlook the fact that Ragin’s approaches are restricted to problems of
explanation — they are immaterial in descriptive research questions.

6.3 Analysis

In the large majority of case study research reports reference is made to Yin, or to
one of the qualitative traditions, or to Ragin, or to Miles and Huberman. Although
in research reports of case studies attention is paid to recommended procedures
of analysis, it is often immediately clear which of the above-mentioned research
traditions functioned as the source of inspiration for the investigator. However,
researchers invariably do not discuss why they make the choices they do. As
a consequence, the character of case study data analysis generally remains
obfuscated.
For our purposes, it is not very useful to investigate thoroughly all of the tradi-
tions mentioned above. Yin’s texts with respect to data analysis are brief and gen-
eral in nature. They have little to teach the researcher who already has a basic
knowledge of quantitative analysis. Methods of analysis in the qualitative tradi-
tions, such as symbolic interactionism, conversation analysis and protocol analysis,
are rather specific and very diversified. For a general text on case study data analy-
sis they are hardly relevant. Besides, within each of the traditons excellent text-
books are available. We have to be very keen, however, in remembering some central
ideas behind these approaches, in particular their focus on meanings, perceptions and
social relations. The ‘Miles and Huberman’ approach offers more starting-points for a

124 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

methodological text on case studies. We agree with these authors in their empha-
sis on the use of the language of variables to enhance the precision of research
results. The transparency striven for by Miles and Huberman in their tables and
graphic representations is very important for the researcher as well as for the
reader of the report, who may be interested in a written text, but who cannot
help asking ‘how is this relevant to me?’

BOX 6.1 An example

A modest little technique to reach case-+ranscending conclusions after the collec-

tion of data is to have two cases compared, to detect similarities and dissimi-
larities. A still more elegant variant of this finds its origin in the ‘repertory grid
technique’. Select three cases, indicate in which respect two of them are similar,
and the third one is the deviant. Techniques such as these are, however, only
possible after having constructed a small data matrix, in which a restricted
number of variables and scores is represented. If we only had written portraits
of cases at our disposal, a comparison such as this, and a distribution over types,
is much more difficult.°

Although Miles and Huberman have done a very good job in emphasising the
importance of schematised representations of data, we do not follow these authors
in presenting and discussing a great many tables and matrices. It is our opinion that
it is possible for such representations of reduced data to be ‘invented’ by the
researcher her/himself. Many of Miles and Huberman’s diagrams and illustrations
are remarkably self-evident. Instead, we are strongly inspired by theories or theo-
retical concepts. This does not mean that we restrict ourselves to testing research.
In that case we would cover only a very small part of the total research endeavour
in case studies. But, as discussed in Chapter 4, even when using an exploratory
approach, we always need a theoretical foundation from which to begin.
Furthermore, it would be a mistake to discuss a,lengthy list of specific proce-
dures for data analysis. It is more appropriate to concentrate on a few well-known
concepts and principles of analysis, and to reflect on well-known criteria for data
quality, such as reliability and validity. For instance, we have to keep in mind that
it is not the aim of the researcher to produce a detailed ‘portrait’ of each case,
describing a multitude of relevant and irrelevant properties, but rather the aim is
to solve the problem that the case set out to address as precisely as possible.
In Chapter 4 we looked at what data to collect within the scope of a research
project investigating the introduction of a new process in an organisation, with

5Fransella and Bannister (2003).

How to Analyse Your Data? 125

special reference to educational organisations. In the light of our research questions,
the problem at hand is: how best to present the data we collected? In what follows,
we point out some important distinctions and provide some ideas about how to
do this. It is not a comprehensive account. We do not strive for completeness. We
only offer some examples of how a researcher, armed with a research question and
some theoretical ideas, can handle case study data.

Sketching out the theory

The tentative theory should be represented in the usual way, with a model consisting
of a set of points and arrows (compare Figures 4.1 and 4.2). Don’t forget to
include possible alternative theories. These should be handled in the same way,
assuming of course that you have measured all relevant variables. The following
rules might be followed:

e label each variable with an appropriate acronym (e.g. attitude towards the innovation
by ATTINN, etc.}
e list the assumed causes on the left-hand side of the paper and the consequences on the
righthand side
e represent a causal influence using a one-sided arrow from cause to effect
e if two variables are correlated, and it is assumed that they influence each other or that
both are influenced by an exogenous variable (a variable outside of the model), repre-
sent this correlation using a double-sided curved arrow between both variables
e represent a statistical interaction using an x-sign that links the interacting causes.

When we are dealing with case studies, and certainly in using an exploratory
approach, a model such as this is only partly complete; there will still be ques-
tion marks here and there. In the simplest case, it consists of an inventory of
target variables, and a list of possible conditions and causes. With an exploratory
approach, the model is continuously being adjusted and supplemented as new
elements come to the fore during the research process. But for the researcher it
is important to establish the parameters within which (s)he works, as these form
the basis for the next procedural steps. Besides, this forces the researcher to
concentrate on simplicity. Otherwise, a researcher could easily be tempted to
sketch a causal mini-model for each studied person. A certain cause often seems
to work for the one, and not for the other. Such differences threaten to draw
the reseacher’s attention away from the essential picture. In the following, we
examine several elements in the model, starting with the dependent or target
variables.

The target variables: aggregated behaviour

The first step is simple and has little to do with the specific character of a case
study. We need to sketch the progress of the innovation process in terms of the

126 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

number of teachers involved. A time line (with measurement points on the
horizontal axis and percentage of teachers involved on the vertical axis) provides
an adequate solution (we deal here with so-called growth curves). If the horizon-
tal line comprises (objectively equal) time intervals, we can add to certain points
on the line crucial events, policy interventions, contextual changes. This teaching
can reveal sudden interruptions or problems, for instance the departure of an
inspiring leader or the withdrawal of funds. Comparing such growth curves for
other indicators of the main target (e.g. the percentage of teaching time in which
computers are used; the number of pupils who received computer-based instruc-
tion) may show whether these subsidiary targets are occurring at the same rate, or
whether one occurs faster than the other. Exactly because we want to explain the
developments with respect to the target variables, one of our first requirements is
to gauge the development of each of these variables.
The interpretation of sudden changes in development, or differences between the
growth curves of several indicators, is not always easy. In such cases, an informant’s
personal experience may become crucial. How does the teacher explain his/her
behaviour with respect to the innovation? And how does the informant see the
whole process in terms of the major problems and the role of other participants? Of
course, by recognising hidden problems we acquire insight into the way people jus-
tify their behaviour and overcome difficulties. We usually call the complex of ideas,
opinions, perceptions and attitudes of an actor, the ‘cognitive map’ or the ‘mental
map’ of the actor. Our aim is to detect whether the researcher overlooks important
factors in the process. How we analyse ‘stories’ serves to complement or correct the
theoretical path diagrams, such as in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. The ultimate aim is to
understand and explain the behaviour of an individual in view of his/her background
characteristics, social relations and experiences; it is not about counting frequencies.

Other variables: properties of the ‘unit’ and of several contexts

To start with, for our own orientation as well as for the readers of our report, it is
important not only to describe the outward appearance of the researched organisa-
tion (i.e. its size, type, location, material resources, relations with other organisa-
tions, etc.) but also to account for its internal structure. Such core data are of
special importance when we include mire than one organisation in our study.
And of course, it is possible that different developments in several cases can be
explained by organisational variables.

A comment that will be repeated below, however, needs to be made here. If three
of the studied schools are large and two are medium-sized, and if we discover that
in the large schools the spread of the innovation is slow and in the medium-sized
schools high, we are tempted (even though the empirical base is too weak!) to
conclude that the success of the innovation is co-determined by the size of the
school. Concurring evidence would be obtained by interviewing the participants

How to Analyse Your Data? 127

in the system. For instance, if the teachers frequently remark that certain obstacles
are typical of such large organisations. Thus, a valid interpretation in a case study
often rests on ‘evidence from many sources’.
We can optimally portray some of our core data in diagrams, such as an organo-
gram, that is an overview of the hierarchy and of the roles people play in the
organisation, perhaps supplemented with the names of individuals. In some cases
it is even possible that a special organisational structure is created in favour of a
certain innovation. Sketching out such a structure may be very useful because it
can then be juxtaposed with the ‘real picture’ of the implementation of the inno-
vation. Comparing the ‘pictures’ may highlight obstacles in the process of imple-
mentation. On the basis of this, conclusions may then be drawn with respect to
the absence of leaders, for example, perhaps necessitating changes in the hierarchy
of the organisation. If we want to explain developments on the target variables in
an organisation, we may think, in the first place, of the conditions that may have
changed and of events at the school level or even at higher levels. A school has to
deal with municipal rules and laws, with school inspectors, and with legislation and
rules on the state level. Such data on these contexts have a partly objective char-
acter (such as financial support for special aims) and can be obtained from docu-
mentary sources; partly they are less hard because they refer to supporting or
countervailing forces executed by individual persons. Data are only partly obtain-
able via documents; partly they are brought to the attention of the researcher by
the informants. Some conditions are constant during the whole process of the
innovation, others change systematically or haphazardly. Events at the school level,
for instance, can be the absence or presence of material resources (books, hardware
and software, classrooms), the appearance or disappearance of new management
or even the departure of one strong supporter of the innovation who influences all
others. Other projects in the organisation may also interfere, and this can have a
restricting or facilitating influence on the implementation of the innovation, for
example staff meetings or decisions takén in meetings referring to the way the
innovation shall be pursued.
Obviously, a useful way to proceed would be to construct a large table with
‘temporal points’ as columns and several relevant topics on the different levels of
aggregations as rows. In the cells, relevant events may be indicated with words,
acronyms or other codes. A comparison with the earlier constructed growth curves
of the target variables may provide us with an impression of the association
between the pace of the innovation and other events and decisions.

Other variables: some characteristics and abilities of individuals

The personal attributes of the teachers and other relevant groups also need to be
considered. Depending on the numbers, data collection by means of a survey
seems to be an appropriate approach. In other words, this would be a systematic
data collection on a lower level of aggregation than the school itself. A survey would

128 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

be an effective method of gathering in a reliable way the thoughts, motives,
attitudes, and so on of larger groups. This could be a full survey of the whole
population or a random sample of that population. Subsequently, with the help of
usual standards and procedures of quantitative research, correlations can be estab-
lished. An approach like this, however, is certainly not the main focus of a case
study! We work on the case level, primarily with informants, not respondents.
As already mentioned, we use these informants in the real sense of the word: to
obtain more or less ‘distantiated’ knowledge about the process and its institutional
embeddedness, and by focusing on the personal history and experiences of the
informant. In this last sense, we can compile a data matrix for several individual
informants.
The next question concerns the technical ways a matrix such as this (one row
for each informant) can be simplified. A first simplification would be to construct
a time line for each informant, on which relevant events and changes in the behav-
iour are indicated. This sort of graph is common in research on school and profes-
sional careers. For each individual, specific significant events (often called ‘critical
incidents’) occur. Further simplification can be achieved if each topic is attributed
a raw ordinal variable (i.e. ‘+’ for a favourable and a ‘—’ for an unfavourable devel-
opment) with respect to the innovation. If the researcher is confident in her/his
coding capacities, (s)he can even work with a five-point scale to score the answers
and remarks of the informants.
Next, we can show how each individual develops (indicated by a pattern of
pluses and minuses) on each of the relevant variables. Such an analysis may reveal,
for example, that informants who began with low expectations and modest knowl-
edge may take some time to exhibit the desired behaviour, but when they do, they
persevere with it, while those people who started with high expectations and
quickly adopted the desired behaviour invariably lose interest and can end up
rejecting the innovation.
Other possible ‘discoveries’ could be:

e the existence of factually wrong expectations and the effects these have an individual
e the existence of discrepancies between subjective perceptions and objective conditions
(e.g. one is unaware of the fact that a good user’s gyide is available)
e a lack of knowledge and expertise with the result that people do not know where
to start
e the wish to abstain from participation because the innovation is advocated by a disliked
member of staff, with whom the individual does not want to identify, and so on.

In this way, it is possible to focus clearly on behavioural explanations that may

be specific for each informant. To reach more general conclusions we have to, of
course, compare and combine the patterns of different informants. This only seems
to be possible when patterns are reasonably similar. Of course, we may obtain
several ‘types’ of explanations or perhaps even one general explanation for the
success or failure of an innovation. Everything depends on the uniformity of the

How to Analyse Your Data? 129

processes that develop with different people. In other words, it depends on the
between-informants variance. We will return to this point.

Other variables: properties of pairs of individuals

One of the most appealing advantages of the case study as a method of research
is that in enables us to study persons not as isolated individuals, but in their social
relations. A case study offers us the opportunity to detect and follow the process
by which the distinct characteristics of a person (such as thoughts, perceptions,
attitudes, behaviour) are influenced by others within the study.
Representations of one or more relations between persons on one variable can
be constructed in several ways. Let us take, as an example, the variable ‘help’, or
‘support’. This variable is important because the implementation of an innovation
often occurs by means of personal contacts, and certain people are gradually going
to occupy a key position because others call on them for help. Because ‘people
requesting help’ may eventually become ‘providers of help to others’, it is neces-
sary to review observations after some time. If the number of persons is limited
(say, 20 or so at most), we would normally sketch out a network of these persons,
in which each person is represented by a small rectangle with his/her name in it.
A ‘supportive relationship’ may be represented by a single-headed arrow and, in
the case where mutual assistance is exhibited, by a double-headed arrow. The
thickness of the arrow can also be used to demonstrate the intensity of the sup-
portive relationship. Other data can be added to such a diagram, for instance
someone's position in the organisation, or the official role they have with respect
to implementing the innovation. We have to be careful, however, not to include
too many things in one picture diagram. If diagrams become too complex, they can
obfuscate rather than clarify the picture.
Other sociometric properties used for constructing matrices refer to general
communication levels between participants; the perceived professionalism or
influence of others; factual instruction; control; perceived pressure; and offering
help/support/encouragement/solutions.

6.4 Limits of tabulations on qualitative data

We advocate reporting qualitative data collected from informants in tables, but the
researcher needs to be aware of its limitations.

1 The number of entries

The target is overshot if the selected representation is not lucid. Miles and
Huberman (1994) sometimes present tables with five or six entries (= sets of units
and/or variables). Representations such as these are inspired by the wish to represent

130 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

Table 6.1 An attempt to represent several causes in a data matrix

Liem Sex | Education | Formal position Innovative behaviour

High Senior + Early adoption
High Senior ++
Early adoption
Sabina Middle Junior + Late adoption
Junior # Early adoption
Kenneth Senior - Middle adoption
Junior ++ Early adoption
Bill Junior # Late adoption

Sam M_ | Low Junior

simultaneously several probable causes in a cross-tabulation. However, under-

standability and clarity can suffer a lot. By arranging the row-elements according
to a certain variable, after which a second organising principle is applied (for instance
position in the enterprise and duration of the job) two variables, in an efficient
way, find a representation in a table. Table 6.1 clearly represents more than the
maximum possible in terms of a clear and readable tabulation.

2 The number of rows and/or columns

If the number of rows remains low (maximally between 15 and 20), the essence of
a data matrix may be grasped immediately (this is called ‘eye-balling’). If the number
of rows increases, especially in a table filled with words in the cells, this become more
difficult. The conclusion is that as the number of informants grows, or if several
data sources are used, a data matrix becomes an ineffective method of presentation.
Alternatively, we can break it down into steps, for instance by reducing informants’
data per group into descriptive central measures (medians, means) per subgroup, and
including these, together with more qualitative information, in a table. We can do the
same with columns. However, on a practical note, words require more space in a cell
than numbers, which puts greater restrictions on the number of columns.

3 Missing data
As a more exploratory approach is used, and informants’ responses no longer fit
into neatly comparable units, working with tables becomes less effective. Directly
comparable data only works when standard, uniform questions have been asked.
If interviews follow a more unstructured path it is impossible to compare data.
Using tables to present finding in these circumstances will result in much missing
data and unreliable conclusions.

How to Analyse Your Data? 131

 The central question to be posed within the framework of using tables in the
analysis of case study data is whether they allow unambiguous conclusions. The
answer is, evidently, that this depends on the character of the data, but that several
problems arise. Anyone who has seen a table based on data from different sources —
for instance, a table based on answers from 15 informants — knows that a table like
that cries out for a summary.
Summarising is necessary per subgroup of informants (e.g. in educational
research, teachers from junior levels versus teachers from senior levels) to com-
pare the scores of the groups. Summarising per case is necessary if we want to
compare cases in a multiple case study. Assuming we deal with three functional
groups of each five to eight persons, and in each cell we have an utterance from
each person in each cell. The question we have to solve is whether the three
groups differ systematically from each other. Obviously, we need to reduce the
information, for instance towards a simple ordinal arrangement. Inequalities
(almost no two utterances are literally identical) have to be aggregated into
equivalence classes. To proceed from ‘unique answers from unique persons’ we
have to decide which answers are comparable, and which not. Is an aggregation
like this allowed, or rather, does it produce useful information? Here we are con-
fronted with a specific problem in qualitative data, a problem that is not explic-
itly discussed by Miles and Huberman. One could even say that these authors
rather thoughtlessly neglect it - depending on the form of the matrix they merrily
aggregate and disaggregate. We may distinguish three aspects: numbers, precision
and variance.

With respect to the number of informants: despite a situation in which they work
with very limited numbers of informants, researchers show a tendency to draw
conclusions about differences between categories of informants. The numbers of
interviewed persons are, however, far too small to reach reliable results. When
researchers, on the basis of a table with, for instance, 11 rows (five members of the
Board of Governors and six teachers) draw conclusions about differences between
those two groups with respect to worries, opinions, attitudes, behaviours, involve-
ment, etc., it is hard to attach much importance to these conclusions.
It is important to realise that we cannot expect frequencies from a case study to
be counted, that is to say as long as a serious systematic collection of data in a
clearly demarcated group of respondents is absent. One is tempted — and Miles
and Huberman offer many examples — to report results when only a few data
points are available. Statements are used such as: ‘the majority is in favour of ...’,
or ‘lower secondary school teachers are more positive with respect to the innova-
tion than higher secondary school teachers...’. Evidently, in view of the low
number of informants, as well as the fact that the selected case need not be repre-
sentative for the targeted domain, conclusions like these are of little value.
There is no defence in stating that the multitude of tables presented by Miles
and Huberman only serve as illustrations and could be compressed into one page

132 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

(the reason why the number of rows always remains below 15 or 20). Miles and
Huberman state very clearly that they regard such tables as the quintessence of
data analysis. With larger numbers, these tables would soon become completely
unwieldy, and consequently their value would be even less. On the other hand,
because of the richness of the data (the researcher often disposes of, for instance,
eight or ten indicators for the attitude towards the innovation), conclusions can
be quite firm, that is when they converge. This is an example of the application
of the idea of increasing the number of degrees of freedom. Evidently, this sort of
analysis is strongly dependent on the researcher’s scrutiny and continuous moni-
toring of his/her own subjectivity.

With respect to precision: much can be said in favour of working with detailed data
on the individual level for as long as possible, but in order'to draw some compara-
tive and final conclusions, the subtlety of the individual answers should be left
behind and aggregation should be the objective. Generally, we do not have hard
criteria to justify aggregation of individual, unequal and diversified, words or sen-
tences. The question of whether aggregating individual-level data to some central
measure on the group level (or even on a case level, if cases are to be compared)
is justified with quantitative as well as qualitative data, but is more difficult to
answer with qualitative data. The difference is that in quantitative studies, as a
consequence of pre-coding, the respondent is forced to select one of the answering
categories, while in qualitative research it is the researcher who is obliged to aggre-
gate different answers into equivalent classifications classes.

With respect to variance: tackling the question of whether diverging answers can
be aggregated into an equivalent classification not only depends on numbers and
precision, but also on the variance and on the comparison ofvariances. Aggregating
informants’ data within a case into a ‘case score’ generally is only useful when the
within-case variance is smaller than the between-case variance, and the same goes
for aggregating informants to functional groups or another aggregated-level vari-
able. The usefulness depends on the relation between within-case variance and
between-case variance. Only in the exceptional situation where the opinions of, for
instance, the Board of Governors are homogeneous ’and diametrically opposed to
the also homogeneous opinions of a group of teachers, can such conclusions be
more or less trusted. In reality, the frequency distributions almost always overlap.
Sometimes a previously agreed a priori rule is applied: if the majority (let’s say
80% or whatever the agreed norm is) of a category of people is positive, then this
category of people is scored as positive. Evidently, when the homogeneity within
the group is high, as well as the differences between the groups, it makes sense to
simplify individual opinions to become group opinions. In the analysis of quantita-
tive data, we dispose of technical means (variance measures and analysis of vari-
ance, the core of it being that the within-group variance is compared to the
between-group variances and is statistically tested) to legitimate decisions. In

How to Analyse Your Data? 133

qualitative research this is much more difficult and is much more liable to subjec-
tive biases.

Analyses of data provided by informants are exploratory: the analysis of data leads us
to hypotheses that should be tested by way of extensive, large-scale surveying.
They shouldn't be used to draw definite conclusions about differences between
categories of people.

To digress for a moment, sometimes it may be more relevant to calculate scores

that are not based on a central tendency but on variation of opinions, attitudes or
perceptions. On which matters is a functional group largely divided on time t,, and
does this situation change on the next points in time?

6.5 Conclusions

In this chapter, we discussed three (groups of) orientations towards the analysis of
case study data: Yin’s ‘applied organisational research’ approach; a heterogeneous
set of ‘qualitative’ or ‘fieldwork’ approaches; and Miles and Huberman’s emphasis
on representational techniques. We briefly discussed two other traditions: time-
series analysis and Ragin’s ‘political sciences’ approaches (Ragin’s approach having
been summarily sketched in Chapter 4).
Contrary to the situation in extensive research, a small and handy set of princi-
ples to neatly arrange a diversity of methods of analysis doesn’t exist in intensive
research. There are many good sources for the reader to consult, however, within
the different sub-paradigms. That is why we put an emphasis on similarities between
intensive and extensive research, and on general principles of methodology. We
emphasised problems such as the limitations of presenting data in tables, and the
eternal problem of ‘comparing incomparables'’.
Finally, we underlined that methods based on data that are heterogeneous,
multi-sourced and multifaceted, which are generally collected in case studies,
allow us to generate very interesting and inspiring hypotheses. However, these
hypotheses are clearly tentative. In analysing case study data the researcher should
be guided by the research question, and at the same time be aware of the specific
assets case studies provide. We think primarily in terms of filling in the gaps in rela-
tions between variables regarding subjective motives, attitudes, perceived hin-
drances and social support during a certain period. The researcher has to be aware
of avoiding the pitfall of focusing on frequency distributions. Actually, frequency
distributions are not emphasised in case study research. With respect to the final
report — the end product of analysis — the interpretations given by the author, and
some indications that (s)he has been aware of the limited scope of these conclu-
sions, are more important than the character of the selected representation, which
only has to be as transparent as possible.

134 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 EXERCISES

6.1 In the case studies selected in exercise 1.3, read carefully the chapters
on data analysis. Can the methods be identified as one of the main
approaches we distinguished in this book?
Analyse the timing of the research steps. Was the data collection com-
pleted before analysis started?
Were distinct sources of data used to confirm each other, or to show that
different perspectives can be juxtaposed?
Did the authors attribute opinions or attitudes to stakeholder groups or
other categories of people, while only some representatives of these
groups were interviewed? Identify the properties of individuals, the prop-
erties of groups and of the other sets. Prepare sketches of the theories
used. Were rival theories taken seriously? Are there any threats to the
validity of causal reasoning? What are they?

KEY TERMS

pattern matching program logic models

explanation building grounded theory approach
time series analysis cross-case synthesis

How to Analyse Your Data? 135

 Assets and Opportunities

The structure of this final chapter differs from that of the other chapters. It covers
some more or less separate remaining topics. The main ones are

e Styles of reporting (7.1)

¢ Combining intensive and extensive approaches (7.2)
e Generalizing from the user’s perspective (7.3)
e Meta-analysis (7.4).
The chapter concludes with a few remarks about the efficiency of case studies,
and an epilogue that underlines what attracts researchers to carry out or to par-
ticipate in a case study. This chapter contains no exercises, as the texts on the
covered topics only serve as introduction to the subject matters

7.1 Styles of reporting

In reporting case study results, we usually differentiate between a logical and a rhe-
torical style. The rhetoric style is embodied in the presentation. We try to find appeal-
ing ways to illustrate a point, to convince the reader of our argument, and to empathise
with our subject. We also try to tell our story well. Case studies appeal to people
because they have what might be termed ‘face validity’ or credibility. They provide
evidence or illustrations with which some readers can easily identify. Although this
quality is effective in strengthening the reader’s interest, it is also a dangerous quality.
In the preceding chapter we suggested that generally an exclusively verbal, nar-
rative research report is not sufficiently transparent. A verbal description of a case
does not allow us to be precise. Neither does it offer the possibility to study simul-
taneously interrelated aspects. Moreover, in a verbal story it is difficult to separate
case-specific aspects from case-transcending aspects. Tables and diagrams, however,
force us towards a simplification of a very detailed and complex set of data, to
focus on the things that really matter. The status of examples in case reports is
often obscure: is it evidence, or do they only offer an illustration of something that
has already been proven or shown earlier? Finally, where policy-making is at stake,
people seldom have time to read long reports. Charts, diagrams, illustrations and
overviews are much easier to digest.
 Stake (1978: 5), on the contrary, states that the kind of knowledge documented
in case reports is more useful and more appealing to the reader because it is ‘epis-
temologically in harmony with the reader’s experience and thus to that person a
natural basis for generalisation’. He apparently refers to the fact that a case study
as research strategy, and a case report that is formulated in terms of concrete phe-
nomena, that avoids methodical-technical or theoretical terms and arguments, fits
the concepts and life world of the reader better.! Stake’s quotation is typical for a
kind of holistic thinking in which the general and the specific are not distin-
guished, in which Verstehen experiences a renaissance at the cost of explanation,
and in which finally science progresses by ‘naturalistic generalisation, arrived at by
recognising the similarities of objects and issues in and out of context and by sens-
ing the natural covariations of happenings’ (Stake 1980: 69).
Although points of view of this kind are easily ridiculed, it cannot be denied
that a well-written case report forms easy reading and, in general, many prefer it
to the report of a quantitative research project. Galle (1986: 11) is right in point-
ing out that policy-makers love case reports:

They consider such descriptions as an extension of their lay knowledge. In particular

when it concerns policymaking and implementation by politicians and high employees.
It is all based on profiting from successes and failures of others, and as such it is
similar to their way of gathering information in corridors and meetings. A study about
the realisation of a handful of different governmental policy measures, or a research
report about governmental crisis management, takes its charm from this. Sometimes
the description of a case did appeal so strongly to an employee that it fulfils the role
of a beloved anecdote to be told over and over again if the opportunity arises.

On the other hand, such use evidently is not envisaged by the researcher in the
first place. Moreover, it occurs very selectively, and only if it fits into the frame of
reference of the employee. Finally, there is a general complaint about the ‘real’ use
of case studies. In this respect, a multitude of explanations is offered:

¢ case studies have an aura of subjectivity, unreliability, impressionism

e the status of the instruments is low, ‘one need not be a specialist’, the high-status statistical
apparatus is lacking ,
* generalisability is estimated to be low as well
e conclusions based on a case study seem to be self-evident and, as such, are more
directly based on lay knowledge or prejudices than on empirical data
e through the concreteness of its formulations, it is evident more quickly than with survey
results, in which direction policy suggestions point. As a consequence of this, the use or
non-use of the results strongly depends on whether they fall in fertile soil. If yes, then
policy-makers will cite the report frequently, but selectively; if no, then the report will
generally be ignored.

1See also Sandelowski, M. (2008). The challenges of writing and reading mixed methods studies,
in Plano Clark and Creswell (Eds.) and Ellet (2006).

Assets and Opportunities 137

 Whatever happens, the conclusion that verbal stories should be avoided and
cross-classifications and network diagrams propagated is far too simplistic.
Moreover, other forms of reporting exist and are often used in reality. One needs
only to remember television films such as Seven Up, which revealed the relation-
ship between social inequality and the development of school and professional
careers by interviewing, observing in their daily surroundings and tracing the lives
of a small group of children every seven years.
Evidently, each form of reporting can be applied in a good or a bad way. Texts
that are full of statistics, tables and formulas are far too complicated and, to say
the least, not very clear. Using a personal story to portray a case can, on the contrary,
be very illuminative. An adequate realisation of the rhetorical function can, in this
way, be part of the logical function. It would not do justice to the rhetorical
function to view the logical function as the only right one.
Specific rules for reporting case studies are virtually non-existent. Of course it
is important to offer the reader as clear and as complete a picture as possible,
demonstrating the researcher’s procedures, including data selection, analysis and
interpretations. It is not enough to present only illustrations or illustrative quotes.
The reader should be able to establish how or why such illustrations were selected
and to ascertain the evidential basis for the case study researcher’s conclusions.
Obviously, one should always have the audience in mind. In a report that will
only be read by colleague-researchers, the emphasis should be on giving a full
account of earlier case studies in this field that fit in the relevant scientific tradi-
tion, as well as on the theories and methods used and the researcher’s reasoning
for selecting this approach and not another. In a report that is to be read by policy-
makers and other actors in the field, the emphasis should be on the details of the
case and the results. However, this doesn’t mean that the other aspects should be
omitted in either case.
Having different audiences in mind, the next question is of course whether dif-
ferent reports should be composed for different audiences. Writing several reports
is not an efficient use of resources, so it may be better to compose one report but
with clearly recognisable parts, containing all the necessary information for each
audience. It is less important what form such a report will take. Whether you start
with a summary description of your work and a concise description of the results,
possibly combined with some policy advice, and continue with a full description
of all methodological details, or whether you start with traditional chapters on
research questions, theories, design, techniques of data collection and analysis and
finish with a summary, is largely a matter of personal preference. The main point
is to clearly address each audience and indicate to them where they can find the
information they need.
Reporting a multiple case study, however, confronts us with more problems.
Here also, the choice between whether an extensive report about each case should
be included (in the main text or as appendices) followed by an integrative and
interpretative chapter, or whether the emphasis should be on an integrative text
where the separate cases only serve as illustrations, is up to the researcher. This

138 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

second solution often leaves the reader with a feeling of insufficient insight into
the character of each case, while the first solution will rapidly annoy many readers
who are not interested in the specifics of each case. For the rest, the report of a
multiple case study might profit from a specific ‘question-and-answer format’ in
which each case is described by way of a series of identical questions. The essence
is that the researcher compares and combines the information of the distinct cases
and, in a multi-method approach, relates the case study results to the results of
other parts of the research endeavour. Don’t imagine that a description of a case
‘speaks for itself”!
The idea of anonymity. can create another problem for case study researchers.
In an ideal world, transparency is best achieved if the subject of the case study
can be named in the report. But frequently, to protect the organisation and indi-
vidual informants, and preserve their confidentially, the details of the case need
to be anonymised. This is a matter of research ethics. The same is valid for the
duty of the researcher not to speak to informants about what other informants
have told them if there is any chance that the informants might detect the source.
Of course complete anonymity is impossible to achieve — the researchers them-
selves, the management team of the organisation being researched and the indi-
vidual informants naturally know the real identities.

7.2 Combining intensive and extensive approaches

In asking ourselves questions about combining case studies with other research
designs, we almost automatically arrive at literature about ‘mixed method research’.
Specifically, these sources relate to the mixing of quantitative and qualitative
methods. Quantitative methods are experiments, surveys, quantitative content
analysis, observation checklists, charts, audits — in short, all methods that use
numerals. Qualitative methods relate to studies based on field observation, open
interviewing, qualitative documentary analysis, focus groups and others. These
methods use words where the quantitative methods use numbers. In several fields,
such as nursing, public health, policy evaluation and education, mixing of methods
has become fashionable when designing a research project. The position of case
studies is open to question, but in scientific discourses case studies are almost
always positioned on the qualitative side.
However, differences between intensive and extensive research do not com-
pletely coincide with the qualitative/quantitative distinction, which is, in principle
at least, based on the difference between kinds of data (numerals or words). Most
case studies contain some quantitative elements. This already more or less mixed
character of one strategy in itself is not an exclusive property of case studies. Many
standardised surveys, for instance, contain some open questions that cannot be
analysed quantitatively. More generally, it should be noted that, in contrasting the
two research approaches, controversies are likely to be exaggerated. And concep-
tual differences between research designs and approaches on the one hand, and

Assets and Opportunities 139

kinds of data or methods ofanalysis on the other hand are likely to be obscured by
a simplistic polarisation.
However, it is interesting to browse some of the important literature sources’
on mixed methods. The general idea with respect to the mixing of methods is
that a survey component is used to study the phenomenon ‘in its width’ (i.e. to
estimate univariate and multivariate frequency distributions), while case studies
are used to approach the phenomenon ‘in its depth, by studying language, perspec-
tives, interpretations and the behaviour of the people interacting among them-
selves. One could say that the first approach is primarily guided by the criterion
of external validity (degree of generalisability), and the second by internal validity
(can the causal explanations be trusted?). Until recently, most of the literature
has been strongly focused on types of combination. The usual criteria that are
applied are time order and importance:

¢ Are the quantitative and qualitative components of the research project applied at the
same time (simultaneously) or one after the other (sequentially)? If one after the other,
then which one is first?
e Are the components more or less of the same significance, or is one component more
dominant?

Combining these criteria leads to a typology of mixed methods designs. In practice,

the most frequently used designs are the following:

e The ‘qual’ part precedes the ‘quant’ part in order to explore the field and to study the
language used by potential respondents, and in this way to construct a strong and valid
foundation for consecutive standardised questioning. This order indeed reflects the clas-
sic idea that a qualitative approach functions as an exploratory pilot study for consecu-
tive testing in a quantitative phase. Most qualitative researchers strongly oppose forcing
the qualitative component into a subservient help-role. However, if we have little knowl-
edge beforehand, starting with a qualitative stage (i.e. an exploratory and intensive
phase) is advisable in order to delineate relevant variables.
¢ The ‘quant’ part precedes the ‘qual’ part. Alternatively, we start with a survey to establish
frequencies and calculate statistical relations. This has the advantage of providing an
overview of the width of the phenomenon and of its variance. The ‘qual’ part is used to
improve the interpretation of the data and to provide a helping hand in explaining the
phenomenon under study. A model resulting from quantitative research can profit from

*Bergman (2008); Creswell and Plano Clark (2007); Plano Clark and Creswell, (2008); Tashakkori
and Teddlie (1998). Since the late 1990s, the idea of ‘mixed methods’ is presented by some
authors as a synthesis of the ‘quantitative strand’ and the ‘qualitative strand’ and as the natural
end to the ‘paradigm wars’ in social and behavioural research. Bergman (2003) entails some more
sober contributions. Most publications focus on descriptive characterisations of mixed methods
approaches, and on arguing about the ‘necessary’ merging of methods in all phases of a research
project. Up until now, little attention has been paid to concrete examples of the qualitative com-
ponents of a quantitative research project, or vice versa, or the distinct contributions of the diverse
components to the research results in their totality.

140 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 additional information about causal processes, filling in gaps in our knowledge. The
perceptions and ideas of stakeholders are introduced and studied, for instance with
respect to problems people encounter and how they overcome them. Sometimes deviant
cases are used to extend the theory. This specific order is often argued on the basis of
Lazarsfeld’s old idea of ‘deviant case analysis’.
In a dominantly ‘quant’ approach, especially in evaluation research, a ‘qual’ sub-project
is embedded in order to monitor the process of implementation of a policy measure. Case
studies are often used nowadays in the context of evaluation research such as this, espe-
cially in process or formative evaluation. A first argument for this use is that some causal
links are too complicated to discover, describe and explain using a survey or an experi-
ment. A second argument is that it may be fruitful to describe the ‘real-life context’ of the
implementation of an intervention; mainly, the ways in which the actual intervention dif-
fers from the planned blueprint. Third, a case study may serve to explore why in certain
cases, and when and how, a failure occurs. The alternative, less frequent, design, con-
cerns a quantitative sub-project, for instance a local survey, ‘nested in’ an otherwise
qualitative study.
‘Quant’ and ‘qual’ parts, with about the same importance, are carried out simultane-
ously, and contribute equally to the results. ‘Simultaneously’ should not be taken in a very
strict sense. The parts are probably carried out more or less at the same time, but the
central property of this mixed method is the independent character of each of the parts.
A consequence is, of course, that results of one approach cannot be used for improving
the design or fine-tuning of the other, with the danger that results are solely presented
alongside each other instead of being integrated.
Designs need not be restricted to one ‘quant’ and one ‘qual’ part. Sometimes an explor-
atory approach is followed by a survey, which leads to another qualitative phase of
interviewing. Taking this idea a bit further, we might start with some cases that are stud-
ied in an extensive way in order not to spend too much time on them. We get a first
impression of the width and variance of the phenomenon, and some ideas about the
relevance of certain factors for the phenomenon to be researched. They may also pro-
vide a basis for constructing a questionnaire. Possibly, more than one data collection
method is used: documentary sources, interviews and focus groups come into the picture.
With the larger national survey agencies, focus groups are used to test the questions by
interviewing people after they filled out preliminary ‘test’ versions of the questionnaire.
Then a survey is carried out. Finally, several well-chosen case studies are undertaken to
deepen our understanding of the issue and solve some problems that remain after the
first phases. ,

Nowadays we often see, at least in policy research, a combination of cases and

survey (in both orders), followed by a workshop or a conference of panel mem-
bers representing the different groups of stakeholders. This last element serves
different purposes, such as widening public support for the research project, but
it mainly serves to check whether, when confronted with the personal experi-
ences and views of representatives from the field, aspects of reality or interpreta-
tions of the state of the matter are not partly or completely overlooked in the
research as carried out. Such meetings can play a role in replacing a second series
of case studies.

Assets and Opportunities 141

 BOX 7.1

Padgett’s (2004) study recounts how a team of researchers returned to their original
database for more insights after contradictory findings emerged. This occurred
during the Harlem Mammogram Study, which was funded by the National Cancer
Institute to examine factors that influenced delayed responses to abnormal mam-
mograms among African-American women living in New York City. The research
team had collected both structured quantitative data and open-ended interview
data. After data analyses, the team concluded that the women’s decisions to delay
were not driven by factors in their quantitative model. The researchers then turned
to their qualitative data, highlighted two qualitative themes, and re-examined their
quantitative database for support for the themes. To their surprise, the quantitative
data confirmed what the participants had said. This new information, in turn,
led to a further exploration of the literature, in which they found some confirmation
for the new findings. Used in this way, the researchers could also view the contra-
diction as a springboard for new directions of inquiry.

An example from our research practice may serve to illustrate this combination
of approaches. In Dutch educational research an abundance of extensive, descrip-
tive research has been done on school careers of rude descriptive categories of
pupils, mostly on the basis of cohorts that are monitored in time. For instance,
percentages of school leavers, with or without qualifications differentiated accord-
ing to gender, ethnicity etc., are well known. The question arises whether, by fol-
lowing a restricted number of pupils during their school career, more insight can
be gained into determining factors such as support or lack of support from the
parental home; the role of peers, the development of motivation, and whether
pupils have insight into their own capabilities and future prospects, etc.
A possible design for intensive research might be as follows. A cross-classification
of sex and ethnicity prompts us to include four groups: Moroccan boys and girls,
and Dutch boys and girls. Within each of these four categories, eight pupils are
selected from the 11 year-olds, as well as eight pupils from the 13 year-olds on the
basis of a large cohort study. Pupils are matched, as far as possible, with respect to
the socio-economic status of their parents, age and (start level) intelligence. Each
of the 64 pupils (4 x 8 x 2 = 64) is intensively interviewed at two points in time.
Furthermore, test data with respect to school topics is available, teachers are inter-
viewed and a larger group of pupils is asked to write an essay on a well-chosen,
related topic. What can and cannot be achieved with a (not completely fictitious)
design such as this? Although the design seems to be inspired by principles of
analysis of variance, a traditional causal analysis with sex and ethnicity as predic-
tors of a number of dependent variables (e.g. motivation at moment t; self-deciding
versus parentally guided) is hardly promising. Matching will not be simple, and
will leave ample space for remaining influencing variables; the numbers in each

142 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

cell are so small that only strong effects will be significant; measurement error may
play a destructive role. Furthermore, an analysis of variance would maximally lead
to the discovery of differences, and owing to the fact that we already know that
Moroccan pupils differ strongly from the Dutch in their school careers, knowledge
of this kind is hardly interesting.
The value of this type of research is determined by the expected success of
efforts to: (a) detect a multitude of variables related to social contact, motivation,
experienced rewards and punishments and image building, as a result of intensive
interviewing; (b) detect changes in these variables during the school career on
an individual level; and (c) formulate hypotheses about crucial moments and
events in the determination of a school career. The subjective ideas of the respond-
ents themselves are relevant. It is an example of exploratory research, where the
use of (matched) groups on (exogenous) variables only serves to enable us to for-
mulate tentative hypotheses, not to test them. Evidently, it is difficult to view an
individual Moroccan girl as representative of her group if we only include a
research group of eight girls, while we know that these eight in many respects differ
from each other. Finally, it has to be remarked that this energy-consuming research
design is still not extremely intensive: there are only two interviews and some
limited data from other sources. Participatory observation is hard to realise.
Supplementing the data with additional information from sociometric studies
could be useful: is it possible to detect small groups of interacting pupils that are
relatively homogeneous with respect to motivation or behaviour?
Of course, mixed methods research is based on the assumption that it generates
additional knowledge. Many superlatives are used in addressing the topic of mixed
methods:

Mixed methods are utilized in order to gain complementary views about the same
phenomenon ... they are utilized in order to make sure a complete picture of the
phenomenon is obtained ... they are used in order to explain the understanding
obtained in a previous strand of study ... to assess the credibility of inferences ... to
compensate for the weaknesses of one approach by utilizing the other. (Tashakkori &
Teddlie, in Bergman, 2008: 103)

The fact that additional and sometimes correcting knowledge can be obtained
requires little arguing. If comparable results are obtained with several methods,
there is seldom a debate about interpretations. The results are generally regarded as
evidence for the reliability and validity of our methods. But there is ambiguity with
respect to the handling of contrasting results. ‘Sometimes contrasting results are
expected: ... mixed methods are used with the hope of obtaining divergent pictures
of the same phenomenon. These divergent findings would ideally be compared and
contrasted’ (Tashakkori & Teddlie, in Bergman, 2008: 103). The ubiquitous concept
of triangulation is often used in this context. But do contrasting results mean that
we have a problem of validity or reliability in one kind of data or the other, or in
both? Or are they to be welcomed as understandably different constructions of

Assets and Opportunities 143

reality by different individuals or groups of stakeholders? We mentioned this
problem already in section 5.7; and it is elaborated further in Appendix 3.
It has nowadays more or less become a fad to apply mixed methods research. But
bearing in mind that research questions are decisive with respect to selecting a
research design, it is not at all evident that mixed methods should always be applied.
Therefore, the ‘why’ question about mixed methods deserves more consideration
than it often receives in many texts on methodology. If mixed methods are applied,
their relationship should be carefully considered. This demands, in the first place, that
research questions fitting into each of the approaches are explicitly elaborated.
Second, that the results of a survey report are counter posed with the results of the
case studies, and vice versa. Third, that we actively look for contradictions and seek
to interpret differences, etc. The most common failure is reporting independently,
without considering whether the results confirm or contradict the research ques-
tion. Contradictions should be discussed and possible solutions offered. Relating
intensive and extensive approaches is not the same as ‘integrating results’ into some-
thing like a ‘mean score’. After all, research questions were different as from the
beginning. It can also mean offering an acceptable and theoretically based interpre-
tation of differences, or evidence that a first interpretation was wrong.
Special attention in a mixed project should be given to the researchers’ quali-
fications. The most frequently occurring situation is one in which researchers
with special qualifications, in quantitative or qualitative research techniques,
work more or less independently from each other, while in the end results are
reported. This creates the danger of postponing differences between scientific
ideas to the end of the project, and a Solomon’s decision (of an outsider?) with
respect to discongruencies of research results. Often, researchers who are one-
sidedly of one tradition are very hesitant in participating in debates with col-
leagues ‘on the other side of the fence’. A better solution is that researchers are
trained to carry out both surveys and case studies rather independently, without
being related to each other. Or at the least, that researchers have a basic training
and expertise in both quantitative and qualitative methods and insight about
their additional value. In this way, they may be far better equipped to combine
insights from different approaches.

ian BOX 7.2

An example of a fertile colloboration of an intensive and an extensive approach
is Kops (1993) Flexible Starters, a research project about the transition of young-
sters to adulthood in an uncertain work situation. On the basis of ‘qualitative
interviews’ with 21 youngsters, she constructed a questionnaire that was to be
presented to 812 youngsters. In both approaches, the theoretical starting
bebe was a variant of the theory of cognitive dissonance: the theory of mental

144 | Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

incongruity. The survey set out to establish whether the findings from the ‘ae
component could be generalised to a larger group, and to study whether the dis-
covered patterns could be related to socio-structural variables. In the final report,
each of the initial 21 case reports is represented in some 400-1,000 words, in
which the most important events are interpreted and explained in terms of the
theory used. After a chapter containing a typology of ‘development trajectories’
on the basis of the qualitative interviews, the results of the survey are reported.
The qualitative component of this project is, between parentheses, on the mar-
gin of our definition of case studies. If some additional tens of interviews were
done, we still would be inclined to call it qualitative research, but we would
probably be less inclined to think in terms of case studies. Moreover, this study
was not aimed at specific individual persons. The phenomenon the researcher
was interested in was ‘the first encounter with the labour market’ for a specific
social and educational group. The number of interviewees chosen indicates
already that a typology was aimed for, each type to be represented by several
individuals. But above all, the individual interviews were used to examine the
perceptions, images of the future, norms, expectations, and personal life events
with respect to the transition to adulthood in order to reach a satisfying explana-
tion of what finally happened. Furthermore, the same respondents were inter-
viewed twice because they were also included in the survey. In this way,
developments on the individual level could also be detected. In typifying the
initial interviews as a ‘qualitative pilot study as a try-out for the main study’ one
would do injustice to the case study part: research results are mainly found in
these case studies.

BOXe/:3

Many other examples can be found of a successful application of mixed meth-

ods. !n a study about ‘choices in child care’, the research project could begin
by interviewing some 10-20 parents about their preferences and the process of
decision-making in order to find some clues about the important variables. After
that, a random sample of parents with young children could be asked about
their preferences for, and actual use of, one of three types of non-parental child
care, for instance care by professionals, care by paid babysitters and care by
members of their own social network. Another example is research on ‘teenager
sex’. The use of questionnaires and a random sample could be combined with
interviews with some 20 teenagers and some observational studies. Research
(Continued)

Assets and Opportunities 145

 (Continued)

projects among unemployed people are also likely to contain qualitative and a
quantitative parts. In a context where it is impossible to draw random samples,
the qualitative part often has the upper hand, as in research on the development
on drugs use, or research on the survival strategies and techniques of illegal
immigrants. Especially on the level of organisations, a mix of methods tends to
shift to the ‘case study’ side. The study of palliative care in nursing homes is only
fruitful if it takes place as a case study in one or two nursing homes. An extensive
study among a large sample of nursing homes would only add rather superficial
knowledge.

7.3 Generalising from the user’s perspective

Traditionally, two well-known forms of generalisation are distinguished: the ‘sample-

to-population generalisation’ and the ‘theoretical (or analytical or logical) gener-
alisation’. In the early 1990s, the American educational scientist Firestone advocated
a third kind of generalisation: case-to-case transfer. Firestone defines this as ‘when-
ever a person in one setting considers adopting a program or idea from another one’
(Firestone 1993: 17; see also Kennedy 1979). This approach originates from the
user’s perspective. For a user of case study results, the central question is not
‘towards which population am I allowed to generalise?’, or ‘towards which theory
can I generalise?’, but rather ‘am I allowed to generalise these results to my situation?’
Firestone’s type of generalisation is related to one of the quality criteria proposed
by Lincoln and Guba (1985): transferability. For these authors, the concept of
transferability replaces the criterion of external validity or generalisability as used
in mainstream research. Transferability is very close to usability (Swanborn, 1996a).
This seems to be a rather vague criterion, but it indicates the essential quality of
applied research — that results should be usable for the client.
Firestone grounds his approach on Kennedy’s elaboration of examples from the
medical and legal professions (Kennedy 1979). Kennedy argues from the per-
spective of the user: if someone is in search for an article of law, a policy measure
or a remedy for a specific ‘illness’, and if there is ample documentation covering
different situations leading to different measures, how is this person going to select
the best strategy? One starts, of course, by looking for ‘the most similar’ situation.
The arguments of the potential user concern the degree of similarity between
the researched cases and his/her own case. The potential user, apparently, has ideas
in mind about the relevance of criteria X, and the irrelevance of criteria Y. (S)he
works with a primitive theory or model. The only difference with theoretical gen-
eralisation is that the theory mostly stays implicit. A necessary condition for
case-to-case arguing is that the descriptive characteristics of the case are clearly

146 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

indicated. Firestone cites Stake (1978: 7): ‘the demands for typicality and rep-
resentativeness yield to needs for assurance that the target case is properly descri-
bed. As readers recognise essential similarities to cases of interest to them, they
establish the basis for naturalistic generalisation’. ‘Thick description’, however, is
not sufficient to enable the user to compare cases. Evidently, many details are
irrelevant, and potential users as well as other researchers need more information
than just descriptives. Consequently, we do not agree with Firestone where he,
following Kennedy, assumes that ‘the researcher’s theories about the conditions
that affect the applicability of study conclusions are less important than those of
the reader’ (Firestone 1993: 18). On the contrary, it is very important that the
researcher formulates his/her theory explicitly (why certain variables are consid-
ered relevant and others are left out of the model; why variable X affects variable
Y, or why Z conditions the influence of X on Y), including the conditions that
determine the domain of the theory. A researcher possibly uses partly false assump-
tions, but delineating the rude theoretical structure as well as the empirical refer-
ence of the research results, is part of the responsibility of the researcher, so that
colleagues can start with one or more hypothesis. If the theory is not explicitly
formulated, successors are saddled with unnecessary work, and science with an
accumulation of dispersed, incoherent results. This point of view is all the more
evident if the original researcher used a general theory accompanied by bridge
assumptions to accommodate the theory to the specific situation. Making a distinc-
tion between the general theory and field-specific theories enables succeeding
researchers to be more efficient in their approach. Are there any possibilities to
enlarge the plausibility of the theory used by the researcher, apart from applying it
to new situations? The plausibility can be enlarged by exposing the consequences
of the claimed generalisability of the theory to attempts to refute them by the
‘forum of scientists’. Workshops and post-research conferences where opponents
from opposing sides debate with each other may very well lead to hypotheses
about the domain to become more firmly built on research results. Whether, for
instance, the perspectives of teachers or those of students are described, or whether
classroom interactions are explained, it is always useful to test the results by chal-
lenging them with the criticism of colleague-researchers or methodologists.
it is important, however, to realise that the user may have a different theory (or
perceives other variables as important) from the forum of scientists. It is for that
reason that Firestone considers the researcher’s theory as of less importance than
‘the user’s theory’. This peculiar directional change towards the user’s perspective
fits perfectly into the Cronbach tradition, which contrasts so strongly in American
policy research traditions with Campbell's ideas. For Cronbach et al. (1980), gen-
eralisability or external validity is a much more highly valued criterion than inter-
nal or causal interpretation validity, the all-deciding criterion emphasised by
Campbell (Cook & Campbell 1979).
We must not ascribe characteristics to qualitative research that it isn’t entitled
to. A strict procedure to generalise on the basis of a handful of cases does not exist.

Assets and Opportunities 147

Case-to-case transfer (in so far as it may be regarded as a research procedure)
cannot be opposed to theoretical generalisation. Both are only possible after
procedures and products, as well as the theories used, are made explicit. And the
argument that decision-makers in politics, and parents and teachers in the case of
school research, prefer something like case-to-case transfer is rather primitive. As
is well known, a specific person cannot predict with absolute success the future
behaviour of his/her partner or the suitability of a school for his/her children on
the basis of the aggregated scores from a number of studies. But it is not a bad
thing to advise people on the basis of such aggregate scores. A school director who
wants to read research results about the relationship between class size and output
level gains more from an aggregate, even international study, based on research in
many schools, than from a research report on the same topic in a school that in
some respects is like his/hers. On other characteristics the specific researched
school may be very different from his or her own, apart from the fact that one may
have to search a long time before finding a school that seems to show enough
similarity on the surface.

7.4 Meta-analysis

Decades ago, Lucas (1974) (see also Yin & Heald 1975; Larsson 1993) was already
in search for a method to combine and aggregate results of a large number of exist-
ing case studies about a certain phenomenon. Evidently, the need for aggregation
appears when the number of available studies is growing so fast that potential
users refrain from trying to read them. This situation is becoming more and more
pertinent, especially in the field of evaluation (of traffic regulations, drug addiction
policies, mental health therapies, juvenile help services, information campaigns,
etc.). At the start of the 1970s hundreds of case studies about the effects of decen-
tralisation already existed, all of them reporting about the effects on information
streams, the attitudes of employees and clients, the quality of the services, and
suchlike phenomena. Lucas developed what he called the case-survey. His approach
boils down to scoring each case study report on a completely standardised ques-
tionnaire, including background variables of researcher and case(s), design of the
project, and results. In addition, the ‘surveyor’ indicates with each question his/her
certainty about the given score. Consequently, it is possible to study the reliability
of the score in a subtle way (two coders, and data split on ‘both certain’, ‘one of
the two certain’ and ‘both uncertain’), and to get rid of those cases that deliver too
many uncertain results.
Larsson (1993), two decades later, made an inventory of eight cases in the field
of organisational research. The N’s in these studies covered an interval of 25 up to
215; the number of variables from two to 197! The author distinguishes a list
of 12 steps that are to be taken in a case survey. Subsequently, these refer to
(1) the development of the research question as a basis for (2) the establishment

148 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

of criteria for the selection of cases, and (3) the actual selection, (4) designing the
coding scheme, (5) coding by several persons (Larsson suggests the use of three
coders) as well as, where possible, (6) the participation of the original authors
because ‘missing data’ may be minimised in this way and validity maximised, (7) the
establishment of intercoder reliability, (8) solution of differences between coders,
(9) the establishment of the validity of the coding results, (10) the establishment of
the influence of certain specific method effects on the final conclusions, (11) analysis
of the complete dataset, and (12) reporting the case survey results.
Point 10, in particular, seems to be important: to what degree can it be shown that
the number or the types of informant, the presence or the length of participatory
observation, the application of member's checks or many other peculiarities of the
method did affect the substantive results of a case study? Research into this
aspect — even when there are enough case studies to be found — is not overly simple.
In one of Larsson’s case surveys about mergers and take-overs in industry, some
methodical characteristics — such as the extensiveness of the dataset per case — proved
to correlate with the merger’s success. The evident interpretation is that merging
companies that are successful gets more publicity, and consequently produces more
data, than companies remaining rather independent after a merger, and where noth-
ing much can be said about the merger. The causality direction is probably the
reverse of the one that was conceived by the author at the start of his study.
It will be evident that an approach like this one primarily aims at detecting gross
total effects over a number of comparable studies, rather than being interested in
details, or in comparative studies of differences in social processes. The case surveys
Larsson wrote about included, among others, urban renewal processes, profit par-
ticipatory schemes, and the effects of mergers and take-overs. Evaluation studies
are easier to aggregate than case-specific descriptions. It should not surprise us that
the need for aggregation finds its origins in the context of evaluation research.
Nowadays the term ‘meta-analysis’? has come into use. Meta-analyses demand
an identical object and a high degree of explicitness of the methods used and
results obtained. Techniques were developed to aggregate results of studies statisti-
cally, in which the contributions of the separate, primary cases are weighted. This
results in an effect size measure (ES). This is indeed an astonishing development
in science. For deéades, the randomised control treatment (RCT) was, and still is,
the gold standard in evaluation research. Many applied sciences struggled to come
as close to this standard as possible, but were forced to keep to single case studies,
as randomisation was excluded and even comparative cases were difficult to find.
The birth of meta-analysis was a breakthrough as it facilitated the combination of
results of many single-case studies. Meta-analysis finds its origin in the world of the
health sciences. The need for meta-analyses in itself stimulates the necessity of

3A simple first introduction is Wolf (1986). See also Cook, Cooper and Cordray (1994) and
Cooper and Hedges (1994). The best practical guide is Lipsey and Wilson (2001).

Assets and Opportunities 149

extensively and carefully documenting circumstances, diagnoses and treatments of
each patient or client, the ‘cases’ in order to attain guidelines for an ‘evidence-based
practice’ (EBP) and ‘evidence-supported treatments’ Evidence-based practice is
one of the most frequently used expressions nowadays to qualify the character of
these applied sciences, and is even used to typify the basis of educational curricula
in, for example, nursing sciences. And EBP is almost per definition grounded on
meta-analyses. Useful examples of this approach can be found in the free acces-
sible e-journal, Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy. Clement (2007), for
instance, presents an extended story of the treatment of OCD (obsessive com-
pulsive disorder). He carefully documented the treatment of a 30 year-old
woman in 103 psychotherapeutic sessions during two and a half years. His article
is followed by two comments of Kazdin (1982) and Barlow. The latter are well
known for their place at the very beginning of the development of evidence-
based practice. In this context one may want to consult also the contribution of
the APA Presidential Task Force (2006). )

7.5 The efficiency of case studies

One aspect that deserves more attention concerns the efficiency of case studies. In
most countries little attention is paid to the relative costs of surveys and case.stud-
ies in relation to their benefits. Scrupulous reflection would force us to estimate
in advance the respective contributions of intensive and extensive approaches to
the final report, and would probably lead us to work more efficiently within a case
study. It is our opinion that in this way more time would become available for
prior theoretical reflection as well as for consultation of peers, and less time for
orientation and exploration during the fieldwork itself. Biemans (1991: 159)
identifies what is, in his opinion, the largest disadvantage of case studies: their
time-consuming character:

Each separate interview should be prepared in advance, an appointment should be

made, the interview has to be conducted, the notes taken have to be transferred in a
concise report that contains the essence of it; the report should be sent to the inter-
viewee and be discussed with him or her, and finally the end version should be com-
posed and approved by the interviewee. To give an idea, the total time for a two-hour
interview is estimated at eight hours. Added to this, regular telephone calls are made
for clarification and to obtain additional information. And we didn’t mention the
time needed for data analysis...

Another aspect that needs attention are the organisational skills that are
required when dealing the large piles of data that end up on the researcher's desk,
especially with multiple case studies, and particularly when several cases are studied
simultaneously. It is no simple task to organise, categorise, file and administer so
much material within the process of data collection.

150 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 The use of computers for the analysis of case study data is another aspect that
requires careful consideration. With a restricted number of interviews, say ten or
even 20, it is not at all evident that the raw material has to be cut into pieces,
and each piece coded, submitted to axial coding after the open coding, etc. This
process takes a lot of time and an experienced researcher might obtain comparable
results by glancing at and browsing the interview protocols. Novice researchers,
however, should ask advice from their senior colleagues. And remember, every
researcher has his/her specific preferences...

7.6 Epilogue

In the preceding chapters reference is made sometimes to extreme points of

view — ideas that may boil down to the complete incomparability of case studies
and surveys, or even that case studies are the only avenue to valid knowledge of
the social world around us. In some European countries the tendency towards
polarising intensive and extensive research is not as decisive as it used to be, for
instance, in the United States. Moreover, the integration of social and behavioural
research in society is now widely accepted in public opinion as well as in policy-
making. In much applied research, intensive and extensive approaches form part
of one and the same research project. Yet, we rarely find an adequate design in
which the parts complement each other in an ideal way. Research proposals
remain obfuscated with respect to the possible contributions of each of the parts;
in the one part sometimes completely different rules seem to govern the game, and
in the final report the results are often not sufficiently confronted with each other.
This is probably caused by the fact that most researchers are knowledgeable in
quantitative methods and not in qualitative methods, or vice versa.
This book is inspired by the idea that modern social research is in many respects
very valuable, but that the emphasis has gradually shifted in the direction of quan-
titative research and, to be still more exact, to the statistical analysis of survey data.
Paying greater attention to the strategy of the case study provides an opportunity
to correct this one-sidedness. The case study is not the exclusive domain of the
enthusiastic, but methodologically naivey’amateur in participatory observation
who works in some marginal corner of society. The case study also belongs to the
domain of the multi-versed, methodologically highly skilled researcher, who feels
the necessity to add to the value of descriptions based on extensive datasets by
systematically paying attention to the often contradictory ideas, thoughts, percep-
tions, interactions and meanings of the people and groups it is all about.
Here lies the unique contribution of case studies to the solution of many
research questions of a descriptive, explanatory or predictive character in social
science. Gathering detailed information of many kinds offers an opportunity to
come to grips with social processes in a far more subtle way than when one is
exclusively restricted to survey data. For the rest, that multi-versed, methodologically

Assets and Opportunities 151

skilled researcher should also be, of course, enthusiastic. But that is easier to
achieve because case studies are fun! And it is with this statement that we end: it
is a final reason why case studies should receive more attention!

A case description is vivid. For instance, in doing educational research, the reader
feels him/herself back in the classroom. Citations and observation reports rein-
force this impression. ‘There is no substitute for being on the scene.’ A study into
organisational ineffectiveness via participatory observation produces a much more
readable report than a quantitative analysis of production data.

A case description is picturesque. The researcher portrays a hospital. Healthcare

phenomena, for example, have a greater richness and complexity than can be
illustrated with regression-analyses!

A case description can be breathtaking. The researcher can become embroiled in

role conflicts and then attempt to get out of them. A researcher working with the
uniformed police, for example, may expect to be asked to do some little odd jobs,
such as entering a pub a uniformed officer wants to avoid to see whether a certain
person is present.

A case description is complex. Researchers develop relationships with many

people and groups involved in the research project. Some of them would: nor-
mally never belong in his/her social world. (S)he engages in situations and events
that will never be experienced again. |

A case description is, finally, illuminating. Researchers may observe, describe and
interpret things that an ‘extensive researcher’ wouldn't perceive at all and that are
missed by a layperson. A case researcher forces him/herself to continuously look
for alternative and tentative interpretations — to understand ‘what it is all about!’

KEY TERMS

Logical function of reporting Theoretical generalisation

Rhetorical function of reporting Case-to-case generalisation
Mixed methods research Meta-analysis
Several ways to combine qualitative Effect size measures
and quantitative research
Sample-to population generalisation

‘These remarks are mainly taken from Reijnders (1984).

152 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 Selected Literature on Case Studies

An overview of book literature on case study methodology includes the following

sources. Publications which we consider of special interest to the reader who wants
to deepen an understanding are indicated with one or more asterisk(*). The reader
will find complete references in the bibliography, but as a quick guide we provide
most titles with a brief synopsis.

Abramson (1992). A peculiar mix of a Yiddish diary of a Jewish-Russian immi-

grant to the USA (the author’s grandfather) and a critical interpretation of it by
his grandson, a psychology professor at UCLA. From a Popperian perspective, many
questions are raised in connection with quotations from the diary, and alternative
interpretations are offered.

Adelman, Jenkins & Kemmis (1984). A brief definition and an analysis of the
advantages of the case study, combined with practical tips about how to do a case
study. The article is also included in Simons (1980).

*Bergman (2008). An interesting collection of contributions on mixed method

research, covering about the whole spectrum of opinions.

Biemans (1989). The author starts with five and later adds 17 case studies to
describe designing, adapting and marketing medical-technical apparatus. The
attention is focused on networks of firms, research laboratories and users. Data is
mainly collected via a restricted number of interviews per case. Biemans presents
some practical tips for designing case studies such as this in organisations, gaining
access to the field, etc.

Diesing (1972). One of the first extensive treatises based on an holistic point of
view in social science, and a discussion of the case study within this framework.

Feagin, Orum & Sjoberg (eds) (1991). This reader is of a typical sociological
character and contains a number of essays on the background and procedures fol-
lowed in several famous case studies (among others ‘Middletown III’). It also
contains a plea for holistic, engaged, qualitative research as an alternative to the
scientific method in sociology.
Fishman (1999). An important text for everyone interested in developments in
the field of case studies in clinical psychology.

*George & Bennett (2005). One of the best publications on (comparative) case
study research in the tradition of the political sciences.

*Gerring (2006). A lucid and almost complete handbook on case study research
in the political sciences tradition, more or less in the footsteps of George &
Bennett (2005).

* Glaser & Strauss (1967). This is the most well-known text on grounded theory
research, a strand of qualitative research in the symbolic-interactionist tradition. It
is one of the first methodology books that focuses on the relation between meaning
and social interaction. As such, it is one of the inspiring sources for ourirapproach
of the role of case studies in social research.

*Gomm, Hammersley & Foster (eds) (2000). This book contains ten earlier pub-
lications, some of them (very) old, others more recent, by authors such as Eckstein,
Robinson, Mitchell, Stake, and Lincoln and Guba. Additionally, two ‘commenting’
and summarising contributions by the editors of this debate-stimulating book focus
on generalisation and the use of theory in case studies.

Goode & Hatt (1952). This title is mentioned here for the sole reason that it is
one of the oldest and most well-known defences of qualitative case studies. After
more than half a century of social scientific research, it is, of course, largely out-
dated now.

Gummesson (1991). Argues the case for participatory ‘action research’ in

organisations and for combining the researcher's and the consultant’s role.
Gummesson is a protagonist of engaged, qualitative research. The chapter on ‘Case
Study Research’, contains few new methodological insights for readers who are
acquainted with this type of research, but it offers much information of an anec-
dotal nature. Many insights have value, but they are consistently presented from a
one-dimensional point of view.

Hamel, Dufour & Fortin (1993). This booklet in Sage’s ‘Qualitative Research
Methods Series’ is of French-Canadian origin. It addresses some of the early socio-
logical and anthropological studies, such as Le Play’s work. The case study is
defined as a qualitative strategy. The book’s main value lies mostly in its very
extensive, but rather heterogeneous, bibliography.

Kazdin (1980). A short introduction into the clinical case study and its use,
presenting some historical examples.

154 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

“King, Keohane & Verba (1994). This book focuses on the design and analysis
of case studies in political science. The authors intend to build a bridge between
qualitative (i.e. case studies) and quantitative research, but this effort only partly
succeeds because of the statistical language used. The book is aimed at a high
level, and many parts will be very interesting for qualitative researchers, if they
can follow the argument! The publication has received much attention. For
examples, see the review series in the American Political Science Review, 1995,
89 (2): 454-481.
Kolodner (1993). At first sight, this book on a specific approach in the field of
Artificial Intelligence has nothing to do with case study research. However, the
ways in which small differences between comparable situations are classified as
less important, and the ways in which these situations are put together as one type,
while other differences lead to different types, are very instructive for everyone
interested in how to handle differences and similarities between cases.

Merriam (1988). A simple, sometimes superficial, introduction to qualitative

case studies, with relatively little attention paid to methodology but a great deal
on data collection. The author defines a case study as ‘particularistic, descriptive,
holistic and inductive’. All examples are taken from educational research. This
book can also be read as a handbook for field studies. It contains many references
to other authors.

Merriam (1998). An updated and elaborated version of Merriam (1988).

*Miles & Huberman (1984/1994). A well-known and massive volume that

covers qualitative data analysis. The authors offer a multitude of suggestions for
the construction of tables, networks and other data displays. Its most significant
disadvantage is that it is extremely voluminous, and very impractical if the
reader tries to use it as a ‘cookbook’. Many of its ‘techniques of analysis’ are
largely trivial, in the sense that an intelligent researcher can think of them him/
herself, but for a student who has lots of time at his/her disposal, there are many
useful suggestions, applications, examples and hints to be found in this ‘sourcebook’.
References made to ‘Miles and Huberman’are often regarded as a ‘must’ in research
proposals defending a ‘qualitative’ approach. It is, in that context, regrettably
almost never stated which specific approach, covered by Miles and Huberman,
is meant.

Ragin (2000). This book is a must for anyone interested in fuzzy-set theory.

*Ragin & Becker (eds) (1992). The booklet comprises an interesting collection
of contributions from a heterogeneous group of authors, among others Stanley
Lieberman’s ‘Small N’s and big conclusions’.

Selected Literature on Case Studies 755

Rose (1991). A brief introduction consisting mainly of descriptions of organisational
examples and comments. Its preoccupation is with qualitative, feminist and Marxist
research.

Rothney (1968). A handy, practical booklet (though outdated now) in which

data collection and reporting about ‘children as cases’ is described. It is useful for
educational scientists and pedagogues.

Shontz (1965). A short plea for case studies, with examples from clinical psy-
chology, and an analysis of different uses of case study research.

*Simons (ed.) (1980). This reader contains a number of high-level contributions

in the field of theory of knowledge. Case studies are posited in the qualitative,
holistic tradition. Problems about values and ethics, as well as some more practical
aspects such as the education of researchers, are not avoided.

Stake (1994). For Stake, ‘a case’ is what we have called ‘the bearer’ of the phe-
nomenon. In this rather philosophical essay, the author, from a constructivist point
of view, focuses on learning about ‘the specifics’ in a case.

Stake (1995). A rather opportunistic small book based on seminars with, among
others, Swedish students. It focuses more on technical aspects of classic ‘field
research than on methodology in a general sense.

Strauss & Corbin (1998). As the successor of Glaser and Strauss’s Discovery of
Grounded Theory (1967), this book is a much more detailed and advanced study,
containing many practical suggestions for qualitative research in this tradition.

*Yin (1984/1994/2003). This is perhaps the best direct source for anyone inter-
ested in doing a case study in one or more organisations. It is a brief, very clear
introduction to case study methodology, obviously inspired by applied, organisa-
tional research. In the reviewed edition of 1989 some pages are added on the use
of theory in case study research. In the second edition (1994) and the third edition
(2003) a few topics are further expanded and updated.

Yin (1993/2003). This text offers many applications of case study research, and
addresses the problem to be solved and the research design. Most chapters refer to
case studies in evaluation research. Although this booklet shows a lot of internal
overlap, as several chapters are based on earlier articles, it is a useful addition to Yin’s
earlier book. The author also tackles the topic of ‘ethnographic research’ and ‘the
grounded theory approach’, comparing them with his own preferred procedures
(Yin 1993: 46, 57).

156 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

 The Political Science Debate on
Case Studies

Lijphart (1971), in a study that became a classic, distinguished six types of case
studies. The first type refers to the antique, descriptive, idiographic case studies. He
uses the label ‘atheoretical case studies’ in referring to this set of studies. Cases are
used as distinct examples; there are no attempts at generalisation. Also, there is no
room for theory development, or for testing. ‘Interpretative case study’ theories are
used, but again, they are not developed or tested, and there are no generalisations
either. A theory is used to pinpoint of variables and to interpret results. Often
a case study is used as an illustration of a certain theory that the researcher is
addicted to. We frequently find this approach in symbolic-interactionist research
(Swanborn & van Zijl 1984).
If theories are used for developing or testing purposes, Lijphart distinguishes
between:

e hypothesis-generating case studies

e theory-confirming case studies
e theory-infirming case studies and
e deviant case studies.

The nature of these types of case study in obvious from their labels. Hypothesis-
generating case studies are characteristic of an exploratory approach, resulting in
hypotheses or theory. The next two are characteristic of a testing approach. The
distinction between confirming and disconfirming for deviant) case studies, which
can only be made after the research is ¢éompleted, is surprising: both types can be
taken together under the label ‘testing research’. Lijphart emphasises that the
significance is not that important. Confirmation of a theory that already rests on a
firm empirical base is not very interesting, and when such a theory is discredited
by one case we are not immediately inclined to throw the theory in the waste paper
basket. ‘Deviant case analysis’ serves the special purpose of studying the limits of
a theory: what falls within it? Which conditions or cases fall outside the domain of
the theory? Why does this case deviate? Do we have to specify a theory in order to
include the deviating cases as well? In Lijphart’s opinion, the most important types
are the hypothesis-generating case studies and deviant case analysis, especially
when the latter takes the form of a strict testing of the theory by means of using
extreme cases.
Eckstein’s typology (1975) (see also George 1979; Mitchell 1983), runs parallel
to Lijphart’s. The similarity is illustrated in the following outline:

Lijphart (1971) Eckstein (1975) Standard term

A-theoretical Configurative-idiographic |Non-theoretical

Interpretative Disciplined-configurative | Theory-application
Hypothesis-generating Heuristic Exploration
— Plausibility probes ‘Preliminary testing’
Theory confirming Crucial case studies Testing
Theory infirming Crucial case studies Testing
Deviant cases — A form of exploration

Eckstein (1975) is one of the classics in political science literature on case studies.
The author defends the legitimate role of case studies in theory-guided, testing
research, and challenges the use of comparative research designs that were popular
in the 1970s. He discusses several central methodological concepts, such as ‘degrees
of freedom’, often without using the terminology as it is used today. Eckstein owes
his expression ‘configurative-idiographic’ to Verba. The enumeration is based on
his contribution to the discussion on the role of case studies in comparative
research: from upper to lower in the presented table, the importance of case stud-
ies grows. Eckstein identifies himself strongly with the point of view that ‘every-
thing can be done’ in a case study, and that its value is especially located in the
latter two applications. ‘Plausibility probes’ is a mixed form, a first validation of a
theory, when costs of a real testing approach are prohibitive or not yet known. In
fact, the schemes of Lijphart and Eckstein run a parallel course, as George (1979)
already stated. Contrary to Eckstein, George softens the distinction between
studying one case and ‘comparative research’ in his argument for a ‘structured,
focused comparison’. George addresses the question of how case studies are to be
used systematically, but in an exploratory way, to develop theories.
These debates are a source of inspiration for the political scientists King,
Keohane and Verba (1994). Their book is a plea for the use of qualitative as well
as quantitative methods in political science, starting from some general methodo-
logical principles. The type of qualitative or case study they have in mind is, how-
ever, limited to the study of large political systems using a database of a restricted
number of ‘hard’ variables. It has little in common with our emphasis on ‘interact-
ing individuals’ and their values, opinions, attitudes and processes of meaning.
A handful of extensive reviews are collected in the American Political Science
Review, 1995, 89 (2): 454-81. An overview of current ideas about these topics can
be found in George and Bennett (2005), and in Gerring (2006).
From a theory of science point of view, the follow-up of these debates is very
interesting. Historians, and case study-oriented political scientists tend to follow a

158 Case Study Research: What, Why and How?

process-tracing approach, more or less as indicated in this book, or they focus on
necessary and/or sufficient conditions in the analysis of causation. The last approach
is strongly connected to Ragin’s use of Boolean algebra, fuzzy-set analysis and
modifications of the traditional idea of necessary and sufficient conditions: they
are formulated in probabilistic terminology, such as ‘necessary and/or sufficient in
90% of the cases’, and the deterministic dichotomy is replaced by the absence or
presence of a particular range of values of a continuously coded variable. What
almost all researchers have in common is that they ask questions about the causes
of major outcomes in particular cases, for instance whether different kinds of wel-
fare states in advanced capitalist countries lead to different effects. Historical
analysts are centrally concerned with the temporal dimensions of political expla-
nation. They attach great weight to duration, pacing and timing of events. Finally,
they emphasise the deep understanding achieved through a mastery of secundary
and/or primary source material (Mahoney & Villegas 2006).The generally used
label for this strand of approaches is ‘comparative politics’.

The Political Science Debate on Case Studies 159

 A Note on Triangulation

The label ‘triangulation’ was introduced to the social sciences by Campbell,’ Webb
et al. (1966) and Denzin (1970). It became a popular concept in almost all hand-
books on social science methodology.
‘Triangulation’ is based on the geodetic technique to determine the distance to
a third point if the distance between two points is known together with the angles
that are formed by the line that connects the two points and the lines to the third
point. There is more ‘hope’ than ‘wisdom’ in the application of this principle to
social science. There are few parallels between the distance between two points
and the use of two researchers or two instruments, let alone between the angles of
lines and whatever corresponds to that in social research. Another essential criti-
cism is that in geometry knowledge of both angles is necessary in order to locate
the third point. There is no parallel for this requirement in the social sciences. In
short, the use of the term ‘triangulation’ in social science is far from ideal, but one
cannot ignore the fact that the label is frequently used.
Much has been written about triangulation, and many different types have been
distinguished in the course of time, such as theoretical triangulation, data triangulation
and researcher triangulation. But the core question remains the reaction of the
researcher if, let’s say, two instruments produce identical results, and what the
reaction is if different results are produced. Often reference is made to a classic
article by Campbell and Fiske (1959). These authors aimed at making a reliable
distinction between ‘the trait to measure’ and irrelevant characteristics of the used
methods. Overall, this reference is not appropriate because the aim of social sci-
ence researchers in using triangulation generally is to detect whether the percep-
tions of meanings of different people are really different. Validation is not the goal!
The aim is to describe and explain an object from different perspectives, and in
this way to attain a more complete result. If, in qualitative research, researchers
obtain different results, their (happy) reaction is probably: look, these different
groups of actors each have their own perspective. But if the results are equal or at
least comparable, the interpretation is often: look, our measurement instruments
are reliable! Most researchers are not aware of this peculiar ambiguity.

‘Campbell and Fiske (1959). The label is only mentioned in this article in the Psychological Bulletin
(p. 101), but Campbell refers to publications of his dating back to 1953 and 1956.
 What we have to understand, of course, is why one applies triangulation. What
does one expect from this technique? Is, for example, checking the validity of a
measurement what is needed, or is one aiming at combining several partial scores
into a total score, that is combining the different perspectives into one ‘overarch-
ing’ perspective? There is still another postmodern variant of triangulation: one
does not combine different scores, but interprets each score in its own right.The
argument here is that because of their different epistemological base, they cannot
and should not be combined.
Moreover, one should not use the label ‘triangulation’ for very different things.
Using several theories alongside each other to explain results is an old, wise, fre-
quently applied and often necessary approach to take in solving a problem. One
does not need to use the label ‘triangulation of theories’. The same holds for using
several observers, several samples, several techniques for the analysis of data, and
for other facets of research where the label ‘triangulation’ is used. If it has to be
applied, our advice would be to restrict its application to specific kinds of data or
data sources, such as interviewing + observation, or observation + documentary
evidence.

A Note on Triangulation 161

 A Note on Contamination

The term ‘contamination’ can be placed in a long-standing methodological

tradition. A well-known application, not mentioned in Chapter 5, is the shift from
independent variables towards dependent variables in order to improve predicta-
bility. Some authors extend the concept of contamination in several directions.
‘Cognitive-intellectual contamination’ is used to indicate that a researcher might
exclusively use a perspective linked to his/her own culture to study cases outside
that culture. The researcher’s specific frame of reference limits the extent of his/
her conclusions and gradually dominates his/her observations. Another type of
contamination occurs when, in a multiple case study, the same researcher, using
the same instruments, is subject to expectation bias. The result might be that the
cases look more alike than they are in reality. A final manifestation of contamina-
tion might be that cases can no longer be conceived as independent when stake-
holders gradually learn from earlier cases. An example would be the behaviour of
police officers in handling riots. This last form, however, does not refer to select
the researcher’s thought process or selection of data, but refers to the changing
reality. Although in this context very interesting questions can be raised, for
instance why policy officess apparently learn from some cases and not from others,
the use of the term ‘contamination’ for all these different phenomena is confusing.
In the end, one cannot avoid the conclusion that reality itself is contaminated.
whereas we usually assume that the studied social systems are independent, if this
assumption turns out to be false in a research project, then we need to include
certain variables (such as learning from earlier experiences) in the model. It is, in
a way, a typical example of the argumentation of some researchers: ‘look, the
variable language doesn’t work; we need an holistic approach’.
 Bibliography

Abramson, P.R. (1992). A case for case studies: an immigrant’s journal. London: Sage.
Adelman, C., Jenkins, D. & Kemmis, S. (1984). Rethinking case study, pp. 93-:102 in
J. Bell et al. (eds), Conducting small-scale investigations in educational measurement.
London: Harper & Row.
Ajzen, |. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Alemann, H. von & Ortlieb, P. (1975). Die Einzelfallstudie, pp. 157-177 in J. van Koolwijk &
M. Wieken-Mayser (eds), Techniken der empirischen Sozialforschung (vol. 2). Munich:
Oldenbourg.
Allison, G.T. (1971). Essence of decision: explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston:
Little, Brown. A second edition (1999) is co-authored by G.T. Allison and P. Zelikow.
New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
APA Presidential Task Force (2006). Evidence-base practice in psychology. American
Psychologist, 61: 271-285.
Arnold, D.O. (1970). Dimensional sampling: an approach for studying a small number of
cases. American Sociologist, 5: 147-150.
Bachor, D.G. (2000, May). Rethinking case study research methodology. Paper presented
at the Special Education National Research Forum, Helsinki, Finland.
Bachor, D.G. & Baer, M.B. (2000, May). An examination of pre-service teachers’ portfolio
diaries. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study
of Education, University of Alberta, Canada.
Barlow, D.H. & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs: strategies for studying
behavior change. New York: Pergamon.
Barton, A. & Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1955). Some functions of qualitative analysis in social
research. Sociologica, 1(24): 321-361.
Bass, R.F. (1987). The generality, analysis and assessment of single-subject data.
Psychology in the Schools, 97-104.
Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Bates, R.H., Greif, A., Levi, M., Rosenthal, J.-L. & Weingast, B. (1998). Analytic narratives.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.»
Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo (2nd edn). London: Sage.
Becker, H. (1958). Problems of inference and proof in participant observation. American
Sociological Review, 23: 652-660.
Becker, H.S. (1968). Social observation and case studies, pp. 232-238 in D. Sills (ed.),
International encyclopaedia of the social sciences (vol. 11). New York: Macmillan and
Free Press.
Becker, H.S. (1990). Generalizing from case studies, pp. 233-42 in E.W. Eisner & A. Peshkin
(eds), Qualitative inquiry in education: the continuing debate. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Becker, H.S. (1992). Cases, causes, conjunctures, stories and imagery, pp. 205-216 in
C.C. Ragin & H.W. Becker (eds), What is a case? Exploring the foundations of
social inquiry. New York: Cambridge University Press. Also included in R. Gomm,
M. Hammersley & P. Foster (eds) (2000). Case study method: key issues, key texts.
London: Sage.
Becker, H.S., Geer, B., Hughes, E.C. & Strauss, A.L. (1961). Boys in white: student culture
in medical school. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Behling, J.H. & Mewes, E.S. (1984). The practice of clinical research: the single case
method. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Bennett, A. (1997). Lost in the translation: big (N) misinterpretations of case study
research. Paper presented at the 38th Annual Convention of the International Studies
Association, Toronto. 1997.
Bennis, W.G. (1968). The case study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 4:
227-231.
Bergman, M.M. (ed.) (2008). Advances in mixed method research. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Bernstein, C. & Woodward, B. (1974). All the president’s men. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Beveridge, W.1.B. (1950). The art of scientific investigation. London: Heinemann.
Biemans, W.G. (1989). Developing innovations within networks - with an application to
the Dutch medical industry. PhD thesis, University of Eindhoven, Eindhoven (NL).
Biemans, W.G. (1991). Case research als onderzoeksmethode bij organisatieonderzoek
ten behoevern van marketing (Case research as a method of organizational
research in marketing), pp. 149-168 in Jaarboek van de Nederlandse Vereniging van
Marktonderzoekers '90-'91. Haarlem: de Vrieseborch.
Binneberg, K. (1985). Grundlagen der Padagogischen Kasuistik, Zeitschrift fur Paedagogik,
(31): 773-788.
Blaikie, P. (1993). Approaches to social enquiry. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Blalock, H.M. (1964). Causal inferences in non-experimental research. Chapel Hill,
NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Blau, P.M. (1955). The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bogdan, R. & Taylor, S.J. (1975). Introduction to qualitative research methods. New York:
Wiley.
Boix, C. & Stokes, S.C. (eds) (2006). The Oxford handbook on comparative politics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bolgar, H. (1965). The case study method, pp. 28-38 in B.B.Wolman (ed.), The handbook
of clinical psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bonoma, Th.V. (1985). Case research in marketing: opportunities, problems and a process.
Journal of Marketing Research, 22: 199-208.
Boskma, A.F. & Herweijer, M. (1988). Beleidseffectiviteit en case studies: een vergelijking
van verschillende onderzoeksontwerpen (Social policy effectiveness and case studies:
a comparison of several research designs). Beleidswetenschap, pp. 6-9.
Bovenkerk, F. (1977). Geen woorden maar daden, pp. 127-143 in L. Brunt (ed.), Anders
bekeken. Amsterdam: Boom.
Box, G.E.P. & Jenkins, G.M. (1976). Time series analysis: forecasting and control. Oakland,
CA: Holden-Day.
Bradshaw, Y. & Wallace, M. (1991). Informing generality and explaining uniqueness.
International Journal for Comparative Sociology, 32: 154-171.
Brockwell, P.J. & Davis, R.A. (2003). Introduction to time series and forecasting. New York:
Springer.

164 Bibliography
Bromley, D.B. (1986). The case-study method in psychology and related disciplines.
Chicester: Wiley.
Bryman, A. (1996, 1988). Quantity and quality in social research. London: Routledge.
Bryman, A. & Burgess, R.G. (eds) (1994). Analysing qualitative data. London: Routledge.
Bryman, A. & Burgess, R.G. (eds.) (1999). Qualitative research. London: Sage.
Bulmer, M. (1979). Concepts in the analysis of qualitative data. Sociological Review,
27(4): 651-677.
Bunge, M. (1967). Scientific research. Berlin: Springer. Reissued (1998) as Philosophy of
Science. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Burgess, R.G. (ed.) (1984). The research process in educational settings: ten case studies.
London: Falmer.
Campbell, D.T. (1975). Degrees of freedom and the case-study. Comparative Political
Studies, 8: 178-193.
Campbell, D.T. & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56: 81-105.
Campbell, D.T. & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for
research on teaching, pp. 171-246 in N.L. Gage (ed.), Handbook of research on teach-
ing. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Chatfield, C. (1996). The analysis of time series: an introduction. London: Chapman
and Hall.
Chima, J.S. (2005). What’s the utility of the case-study method for social science
research? American Political Science Association.
Clement, P.C. (2007). The story of ‘Hope’: successful treatment of OCD (Obsessive
Compulsive Disorder). Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy, 3(4): 1-36.
Cline Seal, G.G., Gobo, G. & Silverman, D. (eds) (1999). Qualitative research practice.
London: Sage.
Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for
field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cook, Th.D. Cooper, H. & Cordray, D. (1994). Toward explanatory meta-analysis. New York:
Russell Sage Fundation.
Cooper, H. & Hedges, L.V. (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Cressey, P.G. (1932). The taxi dance hall. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Creswell, J.W. (1994; 2nd edn 2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and
mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 4
Creswell, J.W. & Plano Clark, V.L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed method
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J.W., Plano Clark, V.L., Guttman, M. & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed
methods research designs, pp. 209-240 in A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (eds), Handbook
on mixed methods in the behavioral and social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cronbach, L.J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American
Psychologist, 30 (2): 116-127.
Cronbach, L.J. et al. (1980). Toward reform of program evaluation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Davis, T.M. & Bachor, D.G. (1999, June). Case studies as a research tool in evaluating
student achievement. Paper presented at the Canadian Society for Studies in Education
Conference, Sherbrooke, Quebec.

Bibliography 165
Denzin, N.K. (1970). The research act. Chicago: Aldine.
Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (eds) (1994). Handbook of qualitative research (3rd edn
2000). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Diesing, P. (1972). Patterns of discovery in the social sciences. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Drass, K. & Ragin, C.C. (1992). QCA: qualitative comparative analysis. Evanston, IL:
Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University.
Drass, K. & Ragin, C.C. (1999). QC/FSA: qualitative comparative/fuzzy-set analysis.
Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University.
Dukes, W.F. (1965). N = 1. Psychological Bulletin, 64: 74-79.
Dul, J. & Hak, T. (2008). Case study methodology in business research. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Dyer, W.G. & Wilkins, A.L. (1991). Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better
theory: a rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review, 16: 613-619.
Easton, G. (1992). Learning from case studies (2nd edn). New York: Prentice-Hall.
Eckstein, H. (1975). Case study and theory in political science, pp. 79-137 in
F.l. Greenstein & N.W. Polsby (eds), The handbook of political science: strategies of
inquiry. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. This article is also included in H. Eckstein
(1992). Regarding politics: essays on political theory, stability and change. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press, as well as (abridged) in R. Gomm, M. Hammersley &
P. Foster (eds) (2000). Case study method: key issues, key texts. London: Sage.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14: 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: the case for rigor and
comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16: 620-627.
Ellet, W. (2006). The case study handbook: how to read, discuss and write persuasively
about cases. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Ericsson, K.A. & Simon, H.A. (1984). Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Evan, M.G. (1991). The problem of analyzing multiplicative composites: interactions revis-
ited. American Psychologist, January: 6-15.
Feagin, J., Orum, A. & Sjoberg, G. (eds) (1991). A case for the case study. Chapel Hill,
NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Festinger, L., Riecken Jr., H.W. & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Fielding, N.G. & Lee, R.M. (1998). Computer analysis and qualitative research. London:
Sage.
Fienberg, S.E. (1977). The collection and analysis of ethnographic data in educational
research. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 8: 50-57.
Firestone, W.A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to
qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22 (4): 16-23.
Fishman, D.B. (1999). The case for pragmatic psychology. New York: New York University
Press.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2003). Five misunderstandings about case study research, pp. 420-434 in
G.G. Clive Seale, G. Gobo & D. Silverman (eds), Qualitative research practice. London: Sage.
Foreman, P.B. (1948). The theory of case studies, Social Forces, 26 (4): 408-419. Also
included in B.J. Franklin & H.W. Osborne (eds), Research methods: issues and insights.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. pp. 187-204.
Fransella, F. & Bannister, D. (2003) A manual for repertory grid techniques (2nd rev. edn).
New York: Wiley.

166 Bibliography
Galle, M.M.A. (1986). Case-studie en beleidsontwerp (Case study and policy design).
Sociodrome, 4: 11-13.
George, A.L. (1979). Case studies and theory development: the method of structured,
focused comparison, pp. 43-68 in P.G. Lauren (ed.), Diplomacy: new approaches in
history, theory and policy. New York: Free Press.
George, A.L. & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social
sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Gibbs, G.R. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. London: Sage.
Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1965). Awareness of dying. Chicago: Aldine.
Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Gluckman, M. (1961). Ethnographic data in British social anthropology. Sociological
Review, 9: 5-17.
Goertz, G. & Mahoney, J. (2005). Two level theories and fuzzy-set analysis. Sociological
Methods and Research, 33: 497-538.
Goertz, G. & Starr, H. (eds) (2003). Necessary conditions: theory, methodology and appli-
cations. Lanham, MD: Rowham and Littlefield.
Goetz, J.P. & LeCompte, M.D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational
research. New York: Academic Press.
Gomm, R., Hammersley, M. & Foster, P. (eds) (2000). Case study method: key issues, key
texts. London: Sage.
Goode, W.J. & Hatt, PH. (1952). Methods in social research. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gordon, J. & Shontz, F. (1990). Representative case research. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 69: 62-66.
Gottman, J.M. (1981). Times series-analysis: a comprehensive introduction for social
scientists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Greenwood, G.E. & Parkay, F.W. (1989). Case studies for teacher decision making.
New York: Random House.
Guba, E.G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.
Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29: 75-92.
Guba, E.G. & Lincoin,Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research, pp. 105-117
in N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Gummesson, E. (1991). Qualitative methods in management research. Newbury Park:
Sage.
Hamel, J., Dufour, S. & Fortin, D. (1993). Case study methods. Newbury Park: Sage.
Hamilton, D. (1980). Some contrasting assumptions about case study research and sur-
vey analysis, in H. Simons (ed.), Towards a science of the singular: essays about case
study in educational research and evaluation (CARE Occasional Publications No. 10).
Norwich: Norwich Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia.
Hammersley, M. (1992). So, what are case studies? pp. 183-200 in M. Hammersley,
What’s wrong with ethnography? London: Routledge.
Harré, R. (1979). Social being. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hartley, J.F. (1994). Case studies in organizational research, pp. 208-229 in C. Cassell &
G. Symon (eds), Qualitative methods in organizational research. London: Sage.
Heikema van der Kloet, H.R. (1987). Overdracht van bevoegdheden: een terreinverkenning
(Transfer of legal rights: an exploration). Bondsblad, 84 (15): 4-5 and 9-11.
Herriott, R.E. & Firestone, W.A. (1983). Multisite qualitative policy research: optimizing
description and generalizability. Educational Researcher, 12: 14-19.

Bibliography 167
Hertog, F. Den (2002). Blending words and numbers. Maastricht: University of Maastricht
(NL), unpubl.
Hox, J.J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: techniques and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Huber, H.P. (1984). Entwicklungstendenzen in der Einzelfallstatistik: eine Standort-
bestimmung. Psychologische Beitrage, 26: 348-362.
Imai, K., King, G. & Nall, C. (2008). The essential role of pair matching in cluster-randomized
experiments, with application to the Mexican Health Insurance Evaluation. Available at:
imai.princeton.edu (accessed 22/02/2010).
Ives, K.H. (1986). Case study methods: an essay review of the state of the art, as found
in five recent sources. Case analysis, 2: 137-160.
Kahn, W.A. (1993). Facilitating and undermining organizational change: a case study. The
Journal of applied behavioral science, 29: 32-55.
Kalleberg, A.L., Knoke, D., Marsden, P.V. and Spaeth, T. (1994). The national organization
study: an introduction and overview. American Behavioral Scientist, 37: 860-871.
Kazdin, A.E. (1980). Research designs in clinical psychology. New York: Harper & Row.
Kazdin, A.E. (1982). Single-case research designs: methods for clinical and applied settings.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Kennedy, M.M. (1979). Generalizing from single case studies. Evaluation Quarterly,
3: 661-678.
Kent, R. (2009). Case centred methods and quantitative analysis, pp. 184-207 in D. Byrne
& C. Ragin (eds), Handbook of case-based methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
King, G., Keohane, R.O. & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: scientific inference
in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kolodner, J. (1993). Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Kops, Y. (1993). Flexibele starters. PhD thesis, University of Utrecht, Utrecht (NL).
Kratochwill, T.R. (ed.) (1978). Single subject research. New York: Academic Press.
Kratochwill, T.R. & Levin, J.R. (eds) (1992). Single case research design and analysis.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erloaum.
Kreft, 1.G.G. & De Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modelling. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Kuckartz, U. (2001). An introduction to the computer analysis of qualitative data. London:
Sage.
Kuzel, A.J. (1999). Sampling, in B.F. Crabtree & W.L. Miller (eds), Doing qualitative
research (2nd edn). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Larsson, R. (1993). Case survey methodology: quantitative analysis of patterns across
case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (6): 1515-1546.
Lee, Y.S. (1983). Public management and case study methods. Teaching Political Science,
11: 6-14.
Lewins, C. & Silver, C. (2007). Using software in qualitative research: a step-by-step guide.
London: Sage.
Lieberson, S. (1985). Making it count. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Lieberson, S. (1991). Small N’s and big conclusions: an examination of the reasoning in
comparative studies based on a small number of cases. Social Forces, 70: 307-320.
Also included in C.C. Ragin & H.W. Becker (eds) (1992). What is a case? Exploring the
foundations of social inquiry. New York: Cambridge University Press, and in R. Gomm,
M. Hammersley & P. Foster (eds) (2000). Case study methods: key issues, key texts.
London: Sage.
Lieberson, S. (1994). More on the uneasy case for using Mill-type methods in small-N
comparative studies. Social Forces, 72: 1225-1237.

168 Bibliography
Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. The American
Political Sciences Review, 65: 682-693.
Lijphart, A. (1975). The comparable-cases strategy in comparative research. Comparative
Political Studies, 8: 158-177.
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lipset, S.M., Trow, M. & Coleman, J. (1956). Union democracy: the inside politics of the
International Typographical Union. New York: Free Press.
Lipsey, M.W. & Wilson, D.B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. London: Sage.
Louis, K.S. (1982). Multisite/multimethod studies. American Behavioral Scientist, 26:
6-22.
Lucas, W.A. (1974). The case survey method: aggregating case experience. R-1515-RC.
Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Lynd, R.S. & Lynd, H. (1929/1956). Middletown: a study in American culture. New York:
Harcourt, Brace.
MacLeary, R.T. & Hay, R.A. (1980). Applied time-series analysis for the social sciences.
Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
McCall, G.J. & Simmons, J.L. (1969). Issues in participant observation. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
McClintock, C.C., Brannon, D. and Maynard-Moony, S. (1979). Applying the logic of sample
Surveys to qualitative case studies: the case cluster method. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 24: 612-629.
Mahoney, J. & Villegas, C. (2006) Historical inquiry and comparative politics, pp. 73-89.
in C. Boix and S.C. Stokes (eds), The Oxford handbook on comparative politics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Meenhl, P. (1965). Clinical versus statistical prediction. Journal of Experimental Research
in Personality, 81-97.
Mellenbergh, G.J., Molen dijk, C., de Haas, W. and Gunter/Morst. G. (1990). The sum-of
products variable reconsidered. Methodika, 4: 37-46.
Merriam, S.B. (1988). Case study research in education: a qualitative approach. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Merton, R.K. (1945). Sociological theory. The American Journal of Sociology, 26: 50: 469.
Merton, R.K. and Barber, E. (2004). The travels and adventures of serendipity: a study in
sociological semantics and the sociology of science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Miles, M.B. (14982). A mini-cross site analysis. American Behavioral Scientist, 26: 121-132.
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data:
toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher, 3 (5): 20-30.
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded source-
book (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mili, J.S. (1872). A system of logic (vol. 2) (8th edn). London: Longmans, Green, Reader &
Dyer.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). An emerging strategy of ‘direct’ research, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 24: 580-589.
Mitchell, J.C. (1983). Case and situation analysis. Sociological Review, 187-211. Also
included in R. Gomm, M. Hammersley & P. Foster (eds) (2000). Case study method: key
issues, key texts. London: Sage.
Moore, Barrington Jr. (1966). The social origins of dictatorship and democracy: lord and
peasant in the making of the modern world. Boston, MA: Beacon.

Bibliography 169
Moore, W.E. (1967). The conduct of the corporation. New York: Random House.
Mulhauser, F. (1975). Ethnography and policy-making: the case of education. Human
Organization, 311-315.
Nichols, E. (1986). Skocpol and revolution: comparative analysis vs. historical conjecture.
Comparative Social Research, 9: 163-186.
Niederkofler, M. (1991). The influence of strategic alliances: opportunities for managerial
influence. Journal of Business Venturing, 6: 237-257.
Nisbet, J. & Watt, J. (1984). Case study, pp. 79-92 in J. Bell et al. (eds), Conducting small-
scale investigations in educational management. London: Harper & Row.
Oskamp, S. (1965). Overconfidence in case study judgments. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 261-265.
Padgett, D.K. (2004). The qualitative research experience. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Paige, J. (1975). Agrarian revolution: social movement and export agriculture in the
underdeveloped world. New York: Free Press.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd edn). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Petermann, F. & Hehl, F.J. (Hrsg.) (1979). Einzelfallanalyse. Munich: Urban & Schwarzenberg.
Pion, G.M., Cordray, D.S. & Anderson, S. (1993). Drawing the line between conjecture and
evidence about the use and benefit of practice methodologies. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 24: 245-249.
Plano Clark, V.C. & Cresswell, J.W. (2008) The mixed methods reader. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Platt, J. (1988). What can case studies do? Studies in Qualitative Methodology, 5: 1-23.
Platt, J. (1992). ‘Case study’ in American methodological thought. Current Sociology, 40.
Special issue. Trend Report: The Case Method in Sociology. pp. 17-48.
Popper, K.R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Popping, R. (1999). Computer-assisted text analysis. London: Sage.
Quak, HJ. & de Koster, M.B.M. (2007). Exploring retailers’ sensitivity to local sustainabil-
ity policies. Journal of Operations Management, 25: 1103-1122.
Ragin, C.C. (1987). The comparative method: moving beyond qualitative and quantitative
strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Ragin, C.C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ragin, C.C. (2008). Redesiging social inquiry: set relations in social research. Chicago:
Chicago University Press.
Ragin, C.C. & Becker, H.W. (eds) (1992). What is a case? Exploring the foundations of
social inquiry. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Raudenbush, S.W. & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: applications and data
analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Reijnders, M.|. (1984). De waarde van de case-study voor het proces van beleidsvoor-
bereiding (The value of a case study in preparing for policy), pp. 47-57 in S.J.C. van
Eijndhoven & J.M.G. Leune (eds), Voorbereiding van onderwijsbeleid. The Hague: SVO.
Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data: a practical guide. London: Sage.
Rihoux, B. & Grimm, H. (2006). Innovative comparative methods for policy analysis:
beyond the quantitative—qualitative debate. New York: Springer Kluwer.
Rihoux, B. & Ragin, C.C. (eds) (2008). Configurational comparative methods: qualitative
comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. London: Sage.
Rodrick, D. (ed.) (2003). In search of prosperity: analytic narratives on economic growth.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rokkan, S. (1966). Comparative cross-national research: the context of current efforts,
pp. 3-26 in R. Merritt & S. Rokkan (eds), Comparing Nations. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.

170 Bibliography
Rose, H. (1991). Case studies, pp. 189-202 in G. Allan & C. Skinner (eds), Handbook for
research students in the social sciences. London: Falmer/Taylor.
Rothney, J.M. (1968). Methods of studying the individual child: the psychological case
study. Waltham, MA: Ginn-Blaisdell.
Runyan, W.M. (1982a). In defense of the case study method. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 52: 440-446.
Runyan, W.M. (1982b). Life histories and psychobiography: explorations in theory and
method. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sandelowski, M. (2008) Tables or tableaux? The challenges of writing and reading mixed
methods studies, pp. 301-338 in Plano Clark and Cresswell, J.W. The mixed methods
reader. Thousand Oaks: SAge.
Schatzmann, L. & Strauss, A.L. (1973). Field research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Scholz, R.W. & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded case study methods: integrating quantitative
and qualitative knowledge. London: Sage.
Shadish, W., Cook, T. & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for generalised causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Shaw, C. (1966). The Jack Roller (2nd edn). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shaw, C.R. (1931). Case study method. Publications of the American Sociological Society,
21: 149-157.
Shontz, F.C. (1965). Research methods in personality. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: methods for analysing talk, text and
interaction. London: Sage.
Simons, H. (ed.) (1980). Towards a science of the singular: essays about case study in
educational research and evaluation. Norwich: Centre for Applied Research in
Education, University of East Anglia.
Simons, H. (1996). The paradox of case study. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26:
225-240.
Skocpol, T. (1979). States and social revolutions: a comparative analysis of France,
Russia and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smelser, N. (1973). The methodology of comparative analysis, pp. 45-52 in Warwick, D.
& Osherson, S. (eds) Comparative Research Methods. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Snijders, T.A.B. & Bosker, RJ. (1999). Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and
advanced multilevel modelling. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Social Science History (2000) 24(4). Symposium on Robert H. Bates, Auner Great,
Margaret Levi, and Barry R. Weingast’s Analytic Narratives.
Stake, R.E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher,
7 (2): 5-9. Also included in R. Gomm, M. Hammersley & P. Foster (eds) (2000), Case
study methods: key issues, key texts. London: Sage.
Stake, R.E. (1980). The case study method in social inquiry, pp. 62-75 in H. Simons (ed.),
Towards a science of the singular: essays about case study in educational research
and evaluation. Norwich: Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East
Anglia.
Stake, R.E. (1981). Case study methodology: an epistemological advocacy, in W.W.
Welsh (ed.), Case study methodology in educational evaluation. Minneapolis, MN:
Minnesota Research and Evaluation Center.
Stake, R.E. (1994). Case studies, pp. 236-247 in N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (eds),
Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R.E. & Trumbull, D. (1982). Naturalistic generalizations. Review Journal of philoso-
phy and social science, 7 (1): 1-12.

Bibliography 171
Stein, H. (1952). Case method and the analysis of public administration, pp. XX=XXVI iN
H. Stein (ed.), Public administration and policy development. New York: Harcourt,
Brace, Jovanovich.
Stenhouse, L. (1978). Case study and case records: towards a contemporary history of
education. British Education Research Journal, 4 (2): 21-39.
Stenhouse, L. (1980). The study of samples and the study of cases. British Educational
Research Journal, 6: 1-6.
Stenhouse, L. (1984) Library access, library use and user education, pp. 211-233 in
R.G. Burgess (ed.) Norwich: Falmer.
Stenhouse, L. (1988). Case study methods, pp. 49-53 in J.P. Keeves (ed.), Educational
research, methodology and measurement: an international handbook. Sydney:
Pergamon Press.
Stoecker, R. (1991). Evaluating and rethinking the case study. The Sociological Review,
39: 88-112.
Stouffer, A.S. (1941). Notes of the case study and the unique case. Sociometry,
4: 349-357.
Strauss, J.L. & Corbin, J.M. (eds) (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Strauss, A.L. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and proce-
dures for developing grounded theories (2nd edn). London: Sage.
Sturman, A. (1999). Case study methods, pp. 103-112 in J.P. Keeves & G. Lakomski
(eds), Issues in educational research. Oxford: Elsevier.
Swanborn, P.G. (1996a). A common base for quality control criteria in quantitative and
qualitative research. Quality and Quantity, 30: 19-35.
Swanborn, P.G. (1996b). De Fishbein/Ajzen theorie in de kritiek (Critical remarks about
the Fishbein/Ajzen theory). Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 51: 35-46
(in Dutch).
Swanborn, P.G. & van Zijl, P. (1984) Interactionists do it only symbolically. Mens en
Maatschappij, 59: 152-164 (despite its title, the article is in Dutch!).
Taylor, S.J. & Bogdan, R. (1998) Introduction to qualitative research methods (3rd edn)
New York: Wiley.
Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: combining qualitative and quan-
titative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tashakkori, S.J. & Teddlie, C. (eds) (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and
behavioural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ten Have, P. (1998). Doing conversation analysis: a practical guide. London: Sage.
Thyer, B.A. & Thyer, K.B. (1992). Single-system research designs in social work practice:
a bibliography from 1965 to 1990. Research on Social Work Practice, 2: 99-116.
Tilly, C. (1975). The formation of national states in Western Europe. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Toalmin, S. (1958) The uses of argument (2nd edn 2003). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Towl, A.R. (1969). To study administration by cases. Boston, MA: Harvard University
Business School.
Travers, M. (2001). Qualitative research through case studies. London: Sage.
Tripp, D.H. (1985). Case study generalization: an agenda for action. British Educational
Research Journal, 11: 33-483.
Van den Berg, H., Denolf, L. & Van der Veer, K. (1997). Het kleine verschil: Slaag- en faalfactoren
bij de trajectbemiddeling van allochtonen (The small difference: success- and failure fac-
tors in the trajectory of job intermediacy for allochtonous people). Amsterdam: Jan Mets.

172 Bibliography
Van Gent, W.P.C. (2006). The conditions for neighbourhood (dis-) satisfaction: 29 European
post-war housing estates compared. Paper presented at the European Network for
Housing Research conference ‘Housing in Expanding Europe’, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Velsen, J. van (1967). The extended-case method and situational analysis, pp. 129-149
in A.L. Epstein (ed.), The craft of social anthropology. London: Tavistock.
Vidich, A.J. & Bensman, J. (1958). Small town in mass society: class, power and religion
in a rural community. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wallerstein, |. (1974). The modern world system: capitalist agriculture and the origins of
the European world economy in the sixteenth century. New York: Academic Press.
Warwick, D. & Osherson, S. (1973). Comparative research methods. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Webb, E.J., Campbell, D.T., Schwarz, R.D., Sechrest, L. & Grove, J.B. (1981). Nonreactive
measures in the social sciences. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. (First published under
the title ‘Unobtrusive measures’ in 1966.)
Weitzman, E.A. & Miles, M.B. (1995). Computer programs for qualitative data analysis.
London: Sage.
Whyte, W.F. (1941). Street corner society: the social structure of an Italian slum. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, S. (1979). Explorations of the usefulness of case study evaluations. Evaluation
Quarterly, 3: 446-459.
Wilson, S.M. & Gudmundsdottir, S. (1987). What is this a case of? Exploring some con-
ceptual issues in case study research. Education and Urban Society, 20: 42-55.
Windsor, D. & Greanias, G. (1983). The public policy and management program for case/
course development. Public Administration Review, 26: 370-378.
Winegardner, K.E. (2007). The case study method of scholarly research. The Graduate
School of America. Available at: www.arasite.org/anniefcritan.html (accessed 22/02/10).
Wolf, F.M. (1986). Meta-analysis: quantitative methods for research synthesis. Beverley
Hills, CA: Sage.
Wolf, G.K. (1986). Single case evaluation: basic assumptions and consequences for the
applications. Psychologische Beitrage, 28: 265-278.
Yin, R.K. (14993). Applications of case study research (2nd edn 2003), Newbury Park,
CA: Sage. (First published 1993)
Yin, R.K. (14994). Case study research: design and methods (2nd edn). London: Sage.
(First published 1984; 3rd edn 2003)
Yin, R.K. (2004). The case study anthology. London: Sage.
Yin, R.K., Bateman, P.G. & Moore, G.B. (1983). Case studies and organizational innova-
tion: strenghtening the connection. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1985b
(3), 249-260. he
Yin, R.K., Bingham, E. & Heald, K.A. (1976). The difference that quality makes. Sociological
Methods and Research, 5: 139-156.
Yin, R.K. & Gwaltney, M.K. (1981). Knowledge utilization as a networking process.
Knowledge, Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 2: 555-580.
Yin, R.K. & Heald, K.A. (1975). Using the case survey method to analyze policy studies.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 20: 371-381.

Bibliography 173
 Author Index

Ajzen, I. 77 Corbin sg.Mone Lisi 22

Allison, G.T. 39 Cordray 149
Creswell, J.W. 109, 137, 140
Bacon, F. 113 Cressey, P.G. 11
Barber, E. 17 Cronbach, L.J. 147
Barlow, D.H. 7, 150
Bates, R.H. 86 Davis, T.M. 124
Bazeley, P. 118 Denolf L. 65
Becker, H.S. 11, 39 Denzin, R.K. 19, 117
Becker, H.W. 19 DeKoster, M.B.M. 106
Bensman, J. 38 DeLeeuw, J. 102
Bergman, M.M. 140, 143 Diesing, P. 19
Bernstein, C. 9, 38 Drass, K. 94
Beveridge, W.I.B. 17 Dukes, W.F. 7
Biemans, W.G. 150
Blalock, H.M. 59 Easton, G. 11
Blau, P.M. 38 Eckstein, H. 15, 28
Bogdan, R. 117 Ellet, W. 137
Bonoma, Th.V. 68, 69 Ericsson, K.H. 118
Bosker, R. 102 Evan, M.G. 81
Boskma, A.F. 107
Box G.E.P2124 Feagin, J. 4
Bovenkerk, F. 39 Festinger m2 noi
Brockwell, P.J. 124 Fielding, N.G. 118
Bromley, D.B. 7, 31, 87 Firestone, W.A. 66, 146, 147
Bryk, A.S. 102 Fishbein, M. 77
Bryman, A. 117 Fishman, D.B. 8
Bunge, M. 28
Burgess, R.G. 10, 117 Galle, M.M.A. 137
George" AIL PS
Campbell, D.T. 7, 64, 88, 89, 97, 98, Gerring,, J. 9, 21, 38,41, 53
106, 107, 147 Glases.6.G. T0197 31.3830 53)
Chatfield, C. 124 54, 72, 10S AIT, Lis, 122
Chinta, Js.07 Goetz, J.P. 50, 53
Clement, P.C. 7 Goode, W.J. 18
Coleman, J. 39, 60 Gordon, J. 19
Cook, Th.D. 7, 64, 88, 89, 97, 107, Gottman, J.M. 124
149, 150 Greanias, G. 1]
Cooper, H. 149 Guba, E. 36
Harré, R. 1 Moore, Barrington Jr. 91
Hay, R.A. 124 Moore, W.E. 38
lenis JASE Is
Heald, K.A. 148 Nall, C. 59
Hedges, L.V. 149 Nichols, E. 89
Heikema van der Kloet, H.R. 107 Niederkofler, M. 66
Hersen, M. 7
Herweijer, M. 107 Padgett, D.K. 142
Hox Ja: 102 Paige, J. 91
Huberman, A.M. 10, 15, 53,77, 111, Patton , M.Q. 53, 70, 108
Ile 2125130 Plano Clark, Vil. 137, 140
Platt; J. 10
Imai, K. Popper, K.R. 62

Jenkins 124, 59 Quak, HJ. 106

Kazdin, A.E. 7, 150 IRewexuel, (CAC. IS), IIS)

Kennedy, M.M. 27, 98, 146 89-95, 134
Keohane, R.O. 57 Raudenbusch , S.W. 102
King, G17, 57,59 Richards, L. 118
Kops, Y. 144 Rodrik, D. 86
Kratochwill, T.R. 7, 124 Rokkan, S. 91
Kreft, I. 102
Kuzel, A.J. 53 Sandelowski, M. 137
Kuckartz, U. 118 Skocpol, T. 89
Shadish, W. 88
Larsson, R. 148, 149 Shaw, C. 11
Lecompte, M.D. 50, 53 Shontz, F.C. 19
Lee, Y.S. 11, 118 Simon, H.A. 118
Levin, J.R. 7 Smelser, N. 91
Lewis, C. 118 Snijders, T. A. B. 102
Lieberson, S. 89-91, 95 Steause Jie 10, 19531, 38,39, 53,54,
Lijphart, A. 14 72 105,117,
118, 122
Lincoln, Y. 19, 36, 117 Stein, H. 11
Lipsey, M.W. 149 Silver, C. 118
Lipset, S.M. 39; 60 Stake, R.E. 10, 38, 137, 147
Lucas, W.A. 148 * Stenhouse, L. 10
Lynd, R.S. and H. 38 Stoecker, R. 18
Swanborn, P.G. 37, 55, 77
MacLeary, R.T. 124
McClintock, C.C. 103 Tashakori, A. 140, 143
Mellenbergh, G.M. 81 Taylor, S.J. 117
Merton, R.K. 17 Teddlie, C. 140, 143
Miles, M.B. 10,15, 53, 77,111, 115, 118, Ten Have, P. 118
122=125; 130 Tilly, C. 91
Mill, J.S. 89, 90 Towl, A.R. 11
Mintzberg, H. 27 Trow, M. 39, 60

Author index 175

 Van den Berg, H. 65 Wilson, D.B. 149
Van Gent, W.P.C. 93 Windsor, D. 11
Van der Veer, K. 65 Wolf, EM. 149
Verba, S. 15, 57 Woodward, B. 9, 38
Vidich, A.J. 38
Yin, R.K. 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 34, 41, 46,
Wallerstein, I. 91 50, 55, 66, 75, 77, 88, 104, 105,
Weitzman, E.A. 118 106, 115, 148
Whyte, W.F. 11

176 Author Index

 Subject Index

action agency /research 18, 34 gradations of the independent

analytic narratives 86 variable(s) 108
autonomous vs. additional case grounded theory approach 118-122
studies 35
holistic approach 18-20
basic vs. applied research 35 historical origins 10-11
Boolean logic 91 hypotheses 17, 28

case studies (use in education) 11 informants vs. respondents 74

cases as pars-pro-toto vs. stand-alone introducing sub-units 101
cases 38-40 increasing the number of points
capitalising on chance in time 99
case study (definition) 13, 22 increasing the number of cases 104
case study, single- vs. multiple increasing the number of
15,21 predictions 106
case-cluster method 103
causality 88-95 logic models 116
comparative method 15
conversation analysis 118 micro-, meso- and macro level
critical cases 50 multiple data sources
cross-case synthesis 117 multitrait — multimethod design 103
member checking 110
degrees of freedom 97-99 meta-analysis 148
design problems/research 33 mixed-method research 139-146
diary 75 monitoring 16
demarcation of a domain 47-49
natural context 15
efficiency 78, 150
exploratory approach 17, 30-32 object’demarcations 28
explanation building 116 observation
extensive vs. intensive research 1-5, 89, oral history 17
139-145
employing several independent pattern matching 115
observers path diagram 83, 85
phenomena vs. cases 5-6 ,9
fuzzy sets 92 problem of the two drivers 90
procedures of explanation 80-85
generalisation 8/9, 66-70 protocol 75
generalising from the user’s prospective and respective
perspective 146 research 62-66
quantitative vs. qualitative research 11, 21 selection on the dependent variable 57
quasi-judicial method 87 selection on developmental phases 61
selection on a causal relationship 60
random selection 51 selection of critical cases 62
rarity of the phenomenon 34 styles of reporting 136
research questions 25-29
revelatory case 51] tabulations (limits of) 130-134
rhetorical function of reporting 137 target variables 79, 126
theories (use of) 76-77
selection of cases 45-72 theories (applications) 126-130
single- and multiple-case studies 15, 21 time series analysis 116, 123
single-subject research 7 triangulation 108
selection on pragmatic grounds 52
selection on substantive criteria 52 unique case 50
selecion on the independent
variables 54-57 validity (types of) 36

178 Subject Index

; ~F i iad iad, Vw ee = «8
\ ‘. . . |
rn
 ire"
ws
(ee Sepak coment ey
i
a me oer) yield Leave | “a
_) — @ oairrn| veeat
nod (MIL ae 1
a i ma Te
ee
§ @e
da Sie (rast DH) 7 PU LPNS
Le ‘ sania Ay (2

|io j=me i-4iban,)

0 PAD
Pee
ae iia. Te
a
¢

+
 ~
a * SBN: 978-1-84920-b1e2

www. sagepublications. com

f SE" \|
y Los angeles * London New Delhi Singapore * Washington DC.

Cover image © Rtumeohots 1 Cover deen by Wendy Scott 81 8 4 9 2 0 61 29