Case study
[1][2] For example, case studies in medicine may focus on an individual patient or ailment; case studies in business might cover a particular firm's strategy or a broader market; similarly, case studies in politics can range from a narrow happening over time like the operations of a specific political campaign, to an enormous undertaking like world war, or more often the policy analysis of real-world problems affecting multiple stakeholders.
Generally, a case study can highlight nearly any individual, group, organization, event, belief system, or action.
[8][9]: 5–6 [10][11] There are multiple definitions of case studies, which may emphasize the number of observations (a small N), the method (qualitative), the thickness of the research (a comprehensive examination of a phenomenon and its context), and the naturalism (a "real-life context" is being examined) involved in the research.
[15] He adds that "the defining feature of qualitative work is its use of noncomparable observations—observations that pertain to different aspects of a causal or descriptive question", whereas quantitative observations are comparable.
First, there may be a "no theory first" type of case study design, which is closely connected to Kathleen M. Eisenhardt's methodological work.
[16][17] A second type of research design highlights the distinction between single- and multiple-case studies, following Robert K. Yin's guidelines and extensive examples.
[16][19] Each of these four designs may lead to different applications, and understanding their sometimes unique ontological and epistemological assumptions becomes important.
In clarifying lines of history and causation it is more useful to select subjects that offer an interesting, unusual, or particularly revealing set of circumstances.
[24][32][47] They argue that case studies may also be useful in identifying the scope conditions of a theory: whether variables are sufficient or necessary to bring about an outcome.
[15] Designing Social Inquiry (also called "KKV"), an influential 1994 book written by Gary King, Robert Keohane, and Sidney Verba, primarily applies lessons from regression-oriented analysis to qualitative research, arguing that the same logics of causal inference can be used in both types of research.
[22][48][37] The authors' recommendation is to increase the number of observations (a recommendation that Barbara Geddes also makes in Paradigms and Sand Castles),[34] because few observations make it harder to estimate multiple causal effects, as well as increase the risk that there is measurement error, and that an event in a single case was caused by random error or unobservable factors.
The primary problem is that qualitative research lacks a sufficient number of observations to properly estimate the effects of an independent variable.
[54] However, scholars have pushed back on this claim, noting that inductive reasoning is a legitimate practice (both in qualitative and quantitative research).
[39] As small-N research should not rely on random sampling, scholars must be careful in avoiding selection bias when picking suitable cases.
[21] A common criticism of qualitative scholarship is that cases are chosen because they are consistent with the scholar's preconceived notions, resulting in biased research.
[21] Alexander George and Andrew Bennett also note that a common problem in case study research is that of reconciling conflicting interpretations of the same data.
The Harvard Business School has been among the most prominent developers and users of teaching case studies.
Additional relevant documentation, such as financial statements, time-lines, short biographies, and multimedia supplements (such as video-recordings of interviews) often accompany the case studies.
