what is the difference between case study and research

• Privacy Policy

Home » Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Table of Contents

A case study is a research method that involves an in-depth examination and analysis of a particular phenomenon or case, such as an individual, organization, community, event, or situation.

It is a qualitative research approach that aims to provide a detailed and comprehensive understanding of the case being studied. Case studies typically involve multiple sources of data, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts, which are analyzed using various techniques, such as content analysis, thematic analysis, and grounded theory. The findings of a case study are often used to develop theories, inform policy or practice, or generate new research questions.

Types of Case Study

Types and Methods of Case Study are as follows:

Single-Case Study

A single-case study is an in-depth analysis of a single case. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to understand a specific phenomenon in detail.

For Example , A researcher might conduct a single-case study on a particular individual to understand their experiences with a particular health condition or a specific organization to explore their management practices. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of a single-case study are often used to generate new research questions, develop theories, or inform policy or practice.

Multiple-Case Study

A multiple-case study involves the analysis of several cases that are similar in nature. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to identify similarities and differences between the cases.

For Example, a researcher might conduct a multiple-case study on several companies to explore the factors that contribute to their success or failure. The researcher collects data from each case, compares and contrasts the findings, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as comparative analysis or pattern-matching. The findings of a multiple-case study can be used to develop theories, inform policy or practice, or generate new research questions.

Exploratory Case Study

An exploratory case study is used to explore a new or understudied phenomenon. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to generate hypotheses or theories about the phenomenon.

For Example, a researcher might conduct an exploratory case study on a new technology to understand its potential impact on society. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as grounded theory or content analysis. The findings of an exploratory case study can be used to generate new research questions, develop theories, or inform policy or practice.

Descriptive Case Study

A descriptive case study is used to describe a particular phenomenon in detail. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to provide a comprehensive account of the phenomenon.

For Example, a researcher might conduct a descriptive case study on a particular community to understand its social and economic characteristics. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of a descriptive case study can be used to inform policy or practice or generate new research questions.

Instrumental Case Study

An instrumental case study is used to understand a particular phenomenon that is instrumental in achieving a particular goal. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to understand the role of the phenomenon in achieving the goal.

For Example, a researcher might conduct an instrumental case study on a particular policy to understand its impact on achieving a particular goal, such as reducing poverty. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of an instrumental case study can be used to inform policy or practice or generate new research questions.

Case Study Data Collection Methods

Here are some common data collection methods for case studies:

Interviews involve asking questions to individuals who have knowledge or experience relevant to the case study. Interviews can be structured (where the same questions are asked to all participants) or unstructured (where the interviewer follows up on the responses with further questions). Interviews can be conducted in person, over the phone, or through video conferencing.

Observations

Observations involve watching and recording the behavior and activities of individuals or groups relevant to the case study. Observations can be participant (where the researcher actively participates in the activities) or non-participant (where the researcher observes from a distance). Observations can be recorded using notes, audio or video recordings, or photographs.

Documents can be used as a source of information for case studies. Documents can include reports, memos, emails, letters, and other written materials related to the case study. Documents can be collected from the case study participants or from public sources.

Surveys involve asking a set of questions to a sample of individuals relevant to the case study. Surveys can be administered in person, over the phone, through mail or email, or online. Surveys can be used to gather information on attitudes, opinions, or behaviors related to the case study.

Artifacts are physical objects relevant to the case study. Artifacts can include tools, equipment, products, or other objects that provide insights into the case study phenomenon.

How to conduct Case Study Research

Conducting a case study research involves several steps that need to be followed to ensure the quality and rigor of the study. Here are the steps to conduct case study research:

• Define the research questions: The first step in conducting a case study research is to define the research questions. The research questions should be specific, measurable, and relevant to the case study phenomenon under investigation.
• Select the case: The next step is to select the case or cases to be studied. The case should be relevant to the research questions and should provide rich and diverse data that can be used to answer the research questions.
• Collect data: Data can be collected using various methods, such as interviews, observations, documents, surveys, and artifacts. The data collection method should be selected based on the research questions and the nature of the case study phenomenon.
• Analyze the data: The data collected from the case study should be analyzed using various techniques, such as content analysis, thematic analysis, or grounded theory. The analysis should be guided by the research questions and should aim to provide insights and conclusions relevant to the research questions.
• Draw conclusions: The conclusions drawn from the case study should be based on the data analysis and should be relevant to the research questions. The conclusions should be supported by evidence and should be clearly stated.
• Validate the findings: The findings of the case study should be validated by reviewing the data and the analysis with participants or other experts in the field. This helps to ensure the validity and reliability of the findings.
• Write the report: The final step is to write the report of the case study research. The report should provide a clear description of the case study phenomenon, the research questions, the data collection methods, the data analysis, the findings, and the conclusions. The report should be written in a clear and concise manner and should follow the guidelines for academic writing.

Examples of Case Study

Here are some examples of case study research:

• The Hawthorne Studies : Conducted between 1924 and 1932, the Hawthorne Studies were a series of case studies conducted by Elton Mayo and his colleagues to examine the impact of work environment on employee productivity. The studies were conducted at the Hawthorne Works plant of the Western Electric Company in Chicago and included interviews, observations, and experiments.
• The Stanford Prison Experiment: Conducted in 1971, the Stanford Prison Experiment was a case study conducted by Philip Zimbardo to examine the psychological effects of power and authority. The study involved simulating a prison environment and assigning participants to the role of guards or prisoners. The study was controversial due to the ethical issues it raised.
• The Challenger Disaster: The Challenger Disaster was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion in 1986. The study included interviews, observations, and analysis of data to identify the technical, organizational, and cultural factors that contributed to the disaster.
• The Enron Scandal: The Enron Scandal was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the Enron Corporation’s bankruptcy in 2001. The study included interviews, analysis of financial data, and review of documents to identify the accounting practices, corporate culture, and ethical issues that led to the company’s downfall.
• The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster : The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the nuclear accident that occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan in 2011. The study included interviews, analysis of data, and review of documents to identify the technical, organizational, and cultural factors that contributed to the disaster.

Application of Case Study

Case studies have a wide range of applications across various fields and industries. Here are some examples:

Business and Management

Case studies are widely used in business and management to examine real-life situations and develop problem-solving skills. Case studies can help students and professionals to develop a deep understanding of business concepts, theories, and best practices.

Case studies are used in healthcare to examine patient care, treatment options, and outcomes. Case studies can help healthcare professionals to develop critical thinking skills, diagnose complex medical conditions, and develop effective treatment plans.

Case studies are used in education to examine teaching and learning practices. Case studies can help educators to develop effective teaching strategies, evaluate student progress, and identify areas for improvement.

Social Sciences

Case studies are widely used in social sciences to examine human behavior, social phenomena, and cultural practices. Case studies can help researchers to develop theories, test hypotheses, and gain insights into complex social issues.

Law and Ethics

Case studies are used in law and ethics to examine legal and ethical dilemmas. Case studies can help lawyers, policymakers, and ethical professionals to develop critical thinking skills, analyze complex cases, and make informed decisions.

Purpose of Case Study

The purpose of a case study is to provide a detailed analysis of a specific phenomenon, issue, or problem in its real-life context. A case study is a qualitative research method that involves the in-depth exploration and analysis of a particular case, which can be an individual, group, organization, event, or community.

The primary purpose of a case study is to generate a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the case, including its history, context, and dynamics. Case studies can help researchers to identify and examine the underlying factors, processes, and mechanisms that contribute to the case and its outcomes. This can help to develop a more accurate and detailed understanding of the case, which can inform future research, practice, or policy.

Case studies can also serve other purposes, including:

• Illustrating a theory or concept: Case studies can be used to illustrate and explain theoretical concepts and frameworks, providing concrete examples of how they can be applied in real-life situations.
• Developing hypotheses: Case studies can help to generate hypotheses about the causal relationships between different factors and outcomes, which can be tested through further research.
• Providing insight into complex issues: Case studies can provide insights into complex and multifaceted issues, which may be difficult to understand through other research methods.
• Informing practice or policy: Case studies can be used to inform practice or policy by identifying best practices, lessons learned, or areas for improvement.

Advantages of Case Study Research

There are several advantages of case study research, including:

• In-depth exploration: Case study research allows for a detailed exploration and analysis of a specific phenomenon, issue, or problem in its real-life context. This can provide a comprehensive understanding of the case and its dynamics, which may not be possible through other research methods.
• Rich data: Case study research can generate rich and detailed data, including qualitative data such as interviews, observations, and documents. This can provide a nuanced understanding of the case and its complexity.
• Holistic perspective: Case study research allows for a holistic perspective of the case, taking into account the various factors, processes, and mechanisms that contribute to the case and its outcomes. This can help to develop a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the case.
• Theory development: Case study research can help to develop and refine theories and concepts by providing empirical evidence and concrete examples of how they can be applied in real-life situations.
• Practical application: Case study research can inform practice or policy by identifying best practices, lessons learned, or areas for improvement.
• Contextualization: Case study research takes into account the specific context in which the case is situated, which can help to understand how the case is influenced by the social, cultural, and historical factors of its environment.

Limitations of Case Study Research

There are several limitations of case study research, including:

• Limited generalizability : Case studies are typically focused on a single case or a small number of cases, which limits the generalizability of the findings. The unique characteristics of the case may not be applicable to other contexts or populations, which may limit the external validity of the research.
• Biased sampling: Case studies may rely on purposive or convenience sampling, which can introduce bias into the sample selection process. This may limit the representativeness of the sample and the generalizability of the findings.
• Subjectivity: Case studies rely on the interpretation of the researcher, which can introduce subjectivity into the analysis. The researcher’s own biases, assumptions, and perspectives may influence the findings, which may limit the objectivity of the research.
• Limited control: Case studies are typically conducted in naturalistic settings, which limits the control that the researcher has over the environment and the variables being studied. This may limit the ability to establish causal relationships between variables.
• Time-consuming: Case studies can be time-consuming to conduct, as they typically involve a detailed exploration and analysis of a specific case. This may limit the feasibility of conducting multiple case studies or conducting case studies in a timely manner.
• Resource-intensive: Case studies may require significant resources, including time, funding, and expertise. This may limit the ability of researchers to conduct case studies in resource-constrained settings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Questionnaire – Definition, Types, and Examples

Observational Research – Methods and Guide

Quantitative Research – Methods, Types and...

Qualitative Research Methods

Explanatory Research – Types, Methods, Guide

Survey Research – Types, Methods, Examples

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

Definition and Introduction

Case analysis is a problem-based teaching and learning method that involves critically analyzing complex scenarios within an organizational setting for the purpose of placing the student in a “real world” situation and applying reflection and critical thinking skills to contemplate appropriate solutions, decisions, or recommended courses of action. It is considered a more effective teaching technique than in-class role playing or simulation activities. The analytical process is often guided by questions provided by the instructor that ask students to contemplate relationships between the facts and critical incidents described in the case.

Cases generally include both descriptive and statistical elements and rely on students applying abductive reasoning to develop and argue for preferred or best outcomes [i.e., case scenarios rarely have a single correct or perfect answer based on the evidence provided]. Rather than emphasizing theories or concepts, case analysis assignments emphasize building a bridge of relevancy between abstract thinking and practical application and, by so doing, teaches the value of both within a specific area of professional practice.

Given this, the purpose of a case analysis paper is to present a structured and logically organized format for analyzing the case situation. It can be assigned to students individually or as a small group assignment and it may include an in-class presentation component. Case analysis is predominately taught in economics and business-related courses, but it is also a method of teaching and learning found in other applied social sciences disciplines, such as, social work, public relations, education, journalism, and public administration.

Ellet, William. The Case Study Handbook: A Student's Guide . Revised Edition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2018; Christoph Rasche and Achim Seisreiner. Guidelines for Business Case Analysis . University of Potsdam; Writing a Case Analysis . Writing Center, Baruch College; Volpe, Guglielmo. "Case Teaching in Economics: History, Practice and Evidence." Cogent Economics and Finance 3 (December 2015). doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2015.1120977.

How to Approach Writing a Case Analysis Paper

The organization and structure of a case analysis paper can vary depending on the organizational setting, the situation, and how your professor wants you to approach the assignment. Nevertheless, preparing to write a case analysis paper involves several important steps. As Hawes notes, a case analysis assignment “...is useful in developing the ability to get to the heart of a problem, analyze it thoroughly, and to indicate the appropriate solution as well as how it should be implemented” [p.48]. This statement encapsulates how you should approach preparing to write a case analysis paper.

Before you begin to write your paper, consider the following analytical procedures:

• Review the case to get an overview of the situation . A case can be only a few pages in length, however, it is most often very lengthy and contains a significant amount of detailed background information and statistics, with multilayered descriptions of the scenario, the roles and behaviors of various stakeholder groups, and situational events. Therefore, a quick reading of the case will help you gain an overall sense of the situation and illuminate the types of issues and problems that you will need to address in your paper. If your professor has provided questions intended to help frame your analysis, use them to guide your initial reading of the case.
• Read the case thoroughly . After gaining a general overview of the case, carefully read the content again with the purpose of understanding key circumstances, events, and behaviors among stakeholder groups. Look for information or data that appears contradictory, extraneous, or misleading. At this point, you should be taking notes as you read because this will help you develop a general outline of your paper. The aim is to obtain a complete understanding of the situation so that you can begin contemplating tentative answers to any questions your professor has provided or, if they have not provided, developing answers to your own questions about the case scenario and its connection to the course readings,lectures, and class discussions.
• Determine key stakeholder groups, issues, and events and the relationships they all have to each other . As you analyze the content, pay particular attention to identifying individuals, groups, or organizations described in the case and identify evidence of any problems or issues of concern that impact the situation in a negative way. Other things to look for include identifying any assumptions being made by or about each stakeholder, potential biased explanations or actions, explicit demands or ultimatums , and the underlying concerns that motivate these behaviors among stakeholders. The goal at this stage is to develop a comprehensive understanding of the situational and behavioral dynamics of the case and the explicit and implicit consequences of each of these actions.
• Identify the core problems . The next step in most case analysis assignments is to discern what the core [i.e., most damaging, detrimental, injurious] problems are within the organizational setting and to determine their implications. The purpose at this stage of preparing to write your analysis paper is to distinguish between the symptoms of core problems and the core problems themselves and to decide which of these must be addressed immediately and which problems do not appear critical but may escalate over time. Identify evidence from the case to support your decisions by determining what information or data is essential to addressing the core problems and what information is not relevant or is misleading.
• Explore alternative solutions . As noted, case analysis scenarios rarely have only one correct answer. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind that the process of analyzing the case and diagnosing core problems, while based on evidence, is a subjective process open to various avenues of interpretation. This means that you must consider alternative solutions or courses of action by critically examining strengths and weaknesses, risk factors, and the differences between short and long-term solutions. For each possible solution or course of action, consider the consequences they may have related to their implementation and how these recommendations might lead to new problems. Also, consider thinking about your recommended solutions or courses of action in relation to issues of fairness, equity, and inclusion.
• Decide on a final set of recommendations . The last stage in preparing to write a case analysis paper is to assert an opinion or viewpoint about the recommendations needed to help resolve the core problems as you see them and to make a persuasive argument for supporting this point of view. Prepare a clear rationale for your recommendations based on examining each element of your analysis. Anticipate possible obstacles that could derail their implementation. Consider any counter-arguments that could be made concerning the validity of your recommended actions. Finally, describe a set of criteria and measurable indicators that could be applied to evaluating the effectiveness of your implementation plan.

Use these steps as the framework for writing your paper. Remember that the more detailed you are in taking notes as you critically examine each element of the case, the more information you will have to draw from when you begin to write. This will save you time.

NOTE : If the process of preparing to write a case analysis paper is assigned as a student group project, consider having each member of the group analyze a specific element of the case, including drafting answers to the corresponding questions used by your professor to frame the analysis. This will help make the analytical process more efficient and ensure that the distribution of work is equitable. This can also facilitate who is responsible for drafting each part of the final case analysis paper and, if applicable, the in-class presentation.

Framework for Case Analysis . College of Management. University of Massachusetts; Hawes, Jon M. "Teaching is Not Telling: The Case Method as a Form of Interactive Learning." Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education 5 (Winter 2004): 47-54; Rasche, Christoph and Achim Seisreiner. Guidelines for Business Case Analysis . University of Potsdam; Writing a Case Study Analysis . University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center; Van Ness, Raymond K. A Guide to Case Analysis . School of Business. State University of New York, Albany; Writing a Case Analysis . Business School, University of New South Wales.

Structure and Writing Style

A case analysis paper should be detailed, concise, persuasive, clearly written, and professional in tone and in the use of language . As with other forms of college-level academic writing, declarative statements that convey information, provide a fact, or offer an explanation or any recommended courses of action should be based on evidence. If allowed by your professor, any external sources used to support your analysis, such as course readings, should be properly cited under a list of references. The organization and structure of case analysis papers can vary depending on your professor’s preferred format, but its structure generally follows the steps used for analyzing the case.

Introduction

The introduction should provide a succinct but thorough descriptive overview of the main facts, issues, and core problems of the case . The introduction should also include a brief summary of the most relevant details about the situation and organizational setting. This includes defining the theoretical framework or conceptual model on which any questions were used to frame your analysis.

Following the rules of most college-level research papers, the introduction should then inform the reader how the paper will be organized. This includes describing the major sections of the paper and the order in which they will be presented. Unless you are told to do so by your professor, you do not need to preview your final recommendations in the introduction. U nlike most college-level research papers , the introduction does not include a statement about the significance of your findings because a case analysis assignment does not involve contributing new knowledge about a research problem.

Background Analysis

Background analysis can vary depending on any guiding questions provided by your professor and the underlying concept or theory that the case is based upon. In general, however, this section of your paper should focus on:

• Providing an overarching analysis of problems identified from the case scenario, including identifying events that stakeholders find challenging or troublesome,
• Identifying assumptions made by each stakeholder and any apparent biases they may exhibit,
• Describing any demands or claims made by or forced upon key stakeholders, and
• Highlighting any issues of concern or complaints expressed by stakeholders in response to those demands or claims.

These aspects of the case are often in the form of behavioral responses expressed by individuals or groups within the organizational setting. However, note that problems in a case situation can also be reflected in data [or the lack thereof] and in the decision-making, operational, cultural, or institutional structure of the organization. Additionally, demands or claims can be either internal and external to the organization [e.g., a case analysis involving a president considering arms sales to Saudi Arabia could include managing internal demands from White House advisors as well as demands from members of Congress].

Throughout this section, present all relevant evidence from the case that supports your analysis. Do not simply claim there is a problem, an assumption, a demand, or a concern; tell the reader what part of the case informed how you identified these background elements.

Identification of Problems

In most case analysis assignments, there are problems, and then there are problems . Each problem can reflect a multitude of underlying symptoms that are detrimental to the interests of the organization. The purpose of identifying problems is to teach students how to differentiate between problems that vary in severity, impact, and relative importance. Given this, problems can be described in three general forms: those that must be addressed immediately, those that should be addressed but the impact is not severe, and those that do not require immediate attention and can be set aside for the time being.

All of the problems you identify from the case should be identified in this section of your paper, with a description based on evidence explaining the problem variances. If the assignment asks you to conduct research to further support your assessment of the problems, include this in your explanation. Remember to cite those sources in a list of references. Use specific evidence from the case and apply appropriate concepts, theories, and models discussed in class or in relevant course readings to highlight and explain the key problems [or problem] that you believe must be solved immediately and describe the underlying symptoms and why they are so critical.

Alternative Solutions

This section is where you provide specific, realistic, and evidence-based solutions to the problems you have identified and make recommendations about how to alleviate the underlying symptomatic conditions impacting the organizational setting. For each solution, you must explain why it was chosen and provide clear evidence to support your reasoning. This can include, for example, course readings and class discussions as well as research resources, such as, books, journal articles, research reports, or government documents. In some cases, your professor may encourage you to include personal, anecdotal experiences as evidence to support why you chose a particular solution or set of solutions. Using anecdotal evidence helps promote reflective thinking about the process of determining what qualifies as a core problem and relevant solution .

Throughout this part of the paper, keep in mind the entire array of problems that must be addressed and describe in detail the solutions that might be implemented to resolve these problems.

Recommended Courses of Action

In some case analysis assignments, your professor may ask you to combine the alternative solutions section with your recommended courses of action. However, it is important to know the difference between the two. A solution refers to the answer to a problem. A course of action refers to a procedure or deliberate sequence of activities adopted to proactively confront a situation, often in the context of accomplishing a goal. In this context, proposed courses of action are based on your analysis of alternative solutions. Your description and justification for pursuing each course of action should represent the overall plan for implementing your recommendations.

For each course of action, you need to explain the rationale for your recommendation in a way that confronts challenges, explains risks, and anticipates any counter-arguments from stakeholders. Do this by considering the strengths and weaknesses of each course of action framed in relation to how the action is expected to resolve the core problems presented, the possible ways the action may affect remaining problems, and how the recommended action will be perceived by each stakeholder.

In addition, you should describe the criteria needed to measure how well the implementation of these actions is working and explain which individuals or groups are responsible for ensuring your recommendations are successful. In addition, always consider the law of unintended consequences. Outline difficulties that may arise in implementing each course of action and describe how implementing the proposed courses of action [either individually or collectively] may lead to new problems [both large and small].

Throughout this section, you must consider the costs and benefits of recommending your courses of action in relation to uncertainties or missing information and the negative consequences of success.

The conclusion should be brief and introspective. Unlike a research paper, the conclusion in a case analysis paper does not include a summary of key findings and their significance, a statement about how the study contributed to existing knowledge, or indicate opportunities for future research.

Begin by synthesizing the core problems presented in the case and the relevance of your recommended solutions. This can include an explanation of what you have learned about the case in the context of your answers to the questions provided by your professor. The conclusion is also where you link what you learned from analyzing the case with the course readings or class discussions. This can further demonstrate your understanding of the relationships between the practical case situation and the theoretical and abstract content of assigned readings and other course content.

Problems to Avoid

The literature on case analysis assignments often includes examples of difficulties students have with applying methods of critical analysis and effectively reporting the results of their assessment of the situation. A common reason cited by scholars is that the application of this type of teaching and learning method is limited to applied fields of social and behavioral sciences and, as a result, writing a case analysis paper can be unfamiliar to most students entering college.

After you have drafted your paper, proofread the narrative flow and revise any of these common errors:

• Unnecessary detail in the background section . The background section should highlight the essential elements of the case based on your analysis. Focus on summarizing the facts and highlighting the key factors that become relevant in the other sections of the paper by eliminating any unnecessary information.
• Analysis relies too much on opinion . Your analysis is interpretive, but the narrative must be connected clearly to evidence from the case and any models and theories discussed in class or in course readings. Any positions or arguments you make should be supported by evidence.
• Analysis does not focus on the most important elements of the case . Your paper should provide a thorough overview of the case. However, the analysis should focus on providing evidence about what you identify are the key events, stakeholders, issues, and problems. Emphasize what you identify as the most critical aspects of the case to be developed throughout your analysis. Be thorough but succinct.
• Writing is too descriptive . A paper with too much descriptive information detracts from your analysis of the complexities of the case situation. Questions about what happened, where, when, and by whom should only be included as essential information leading to your examination of questions related to why, how, and for what purpose.
• Inadequate definition of a core problem and associated symptoms . A common error found in case analysis papers is recommending a solution or course of action without adequately defining or demonstrating that you understand the problem. Make sure you have clearly described the problem and its impact and scope within the organizational setting. Ensure that you have adequately described the root causes w hen describing the symptoms of the problem.
• Recommendations lack specificity . Identify any use of vague statements and indeterminate terminology, such as, “A particular experience” or “a large increase to the budget.” These statements cannot be measured and, as a result, there is no way to evaluate their successful implementation. Provide specific data and use direct language in describing recommended actions.
• Unrealistic, exaggerated, or unattainable recommendations . Review your recommendations to ensure that they are based on the situational facts of the case. Your recommended solutions and courses of action must be based on realistic assumptions and fit within the constraints of the situation. Also note that the case scenario has already happened, therefore, any speculation or arguments about what could have occurred if the circumstances were different should be revised or eliminated.

Bee, Lian Song et al. "Business Students' Perspectives on Case Method Coaching for Problem-Based Learning: Impacts on Student Engagement and Learning Performance in Higher Education." Education & Training 64 (2022): 416-432; The Case Analysis . Fred Meijer Center for Writing and Michigan Authors. Grand Valley State University; Georgallis, Panikos and Kayleigh Bruijn. "Sustainability Teaching using Case-Based Debates." Journal of International Education in Business 15 (2022): 147-163; Hawes, Jon M. "Teaching is Not Telling: The Case Method as a Form of Interactive Learning." Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education 5 (Winter 2004): 47-54; Georgallis, Panikos, and Kayleigh Bruijn. "Sustainability Teaching Using Case-based Debates." Journal of International Education in Business 15 (2022): 147-163; .Dean,  Kathy Lund and Charles J. Fornaciari. "How to Create and Use Experiential Case-Based Exercises in a Management Classroom." Journal of Management Education 26 (October 2002): 586-603; Klebba, Joanne M. and Janet G. Hamilton. "Structured Case Analysis: Developing Critical Thinking Skills in a Marketing Case Course." Journal of Marketing Education 29 (August 2007): 132-137, 139; Klein, Norman. "The Case Discussion Method Revisited: Some Questions about Student Skills." Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal 6 (November 1981): 30-32; Mukherjee, Arup. "Effective Use of In-Class Mini Case Analysis for Discovery Learning in an Undergraduate MIS Course." The Journal of Computer Information Systems 40 (Spring 2000): 15-23; Pessoa, Silviaet al. "Scaffolding the Case Analysis in an Organizational Behavior Course: Making Analytical Language Explicit." Journal of Management Education 46 (2022): 226-251: Ramsey, V. J. and L. D. Dodge. "Case Analysis: A Structured Approach." Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal 6 (November 1981): 27-29; Schweitzer, Karen. "How to Write and Format a Business Case Study." ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/how-to-write-and-format-a-business-case-study-466324 (accessed December 5, 2022); Reddy, C. D. "Teaching Research Methodology: Everything's a Case." Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 18 (December 2020): 178-188; Volpe, Guglielmo. "Case Teaching in Economics: History, Practice and Evidence." Cogent Economics and Finance 3 (December 2015). doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2015.1120977.

Writing Tip

Ca se Study and Case Analysis Are Not the Same!

Confusion often exists between what it means to write a paper that uses a case study research design and writing a paper that analyzes a case; they are two different types of approaches to learning in the social and behavioral sciences. Professors as well as educational researchers contribute to this confusion because they often use the term "case study" when describing the subject of analysis for a case analysis paper. But you are not studying a case for the purpose of generating a comprehensive, multi-faceted understanding of a research problem. R ather, you are critically analyzing a specific scenario to argue logically for recommended solutions and courses of action that lead to optimal outcomes applicable to professional practice.

To avoid any confusion, here are twelve characteristics that delineate the differences between writing a paper using the case study research method and writing a case analysis paper:

• Case study is a method of in-depth research and rigorous inquiry ; case analysis is a reliable method of teaching and learning . A case study is a modality of research that investigates a phenomenon for the purpose of creating new knowledge, solving a problem, or testing a hypothesis using empirical evidence derived from the case being studied. Often, the results are used to generalize about a larger population or within a wider context. The writing adheres to the traditional standards of a scholarly research study. A case analysis is a pedagogical tool used to teach students how to reflect and think critically about a practical, real-life problem in an organizational setting.
• The researcher is responsible for identifying the case to study; a case analysis is assigned by your professor . As the researcher, you choose the case study to investigate in support of obtaining new knowledge and understanding about the research problem. The case in a case analysis assignment is almost always provided, and sometimes written, by your professor and either given to every student in class to analyze individually or to a small group of students, or students select a case to analyze from a predetermined list.
• A case study is indeterminate and boundless; a case analysis is predetermined and confined . A case study can be almost anything [see item 9 below] as long as it relates directly to examining the research problem. This relationship is the only limit to what a researcher can choose as the subject of their case study. The content of a case analysis is determined by your professor and its parameters are well-defined and limited to elucidating insights of practical value applied to practice.
• Case study is fact-based and describes actual events or situations; case analysis can be entirely fictional or adapted from an actual situation . The entire content of a case study must be grounded in reality to be a valid subject of investigation in an empirical research study. A case analysis only needs to set the stage for critically examining a situation in practice and, therefore, can be entirely fictional or adapted, all or in-part, from an actual situation.
• Research using a case study method must adhere to principles of intellectual honesty and academic integrity; a case analysis scenario can include misleading or false information . A case study paper must report research objectively and factually to ensure that any findings are understood to be logically correct and trustworthy. A case analysis scenario may include misleading or false information intended to deliberately distract from the central issues of the case. The purpose is to teach students how to sort through conflicting or useless information in order to come up with the preferred solution. Any use of misleading or false information in academic research is considered unethical.
• Case study is linked to a research problem; case analysis is linked to a practical situation or scenario . In the social sciences, the subject of an investigation is most often framed as a problem that must be researched in order to generate new knowledge leading to a solution. Case analysis narratives are grounded in real life scenarios for the purpose of examining the realities of decision-making behavior and processes within organizational settings. A case analysis assignments include a problem or set of problems to be analyzed. However, the goal is centered around the act of identifying and evaluating courses of action leading to best possible outcomes.
• The purpose of a case study is to create new knowledge through research; the purpose of a case analysis is to teach new understanding . Case studies are a choice of methodological design intended to create new knowledge about resolving a research problem. A case analysis is a mode of teaching and learning intended to create new understanding and an awareness of uncertainty applied to practice through acts of critical thinking and reflection.
• A case study seeks to identify the best possible solution to a research problem; case analysis can have an indeterminate set of solutions or outcomes . Your role in studying a case is to discover the most logical, evidence-based ways to address a research problem. A case analysis assignment rarely has a single correct answer because one of the goals is to force students to confront the real life dynamics of uncertainly, ambiguity, and missing or conflicting information within professional practice. Under these conditions, a perfect outcome or solution almost never exists.
• Case study is unbounded and relies on gathering external information; case analysis is a self-contained subject of analysis . The scope of a case study chosen as a method of research is bounded. However, the researcher is free to gather whatever information and data is necessary to investigate its relevance to understanding the research problem. For a case analysis assignment, your professor will often ask you to examine solutions or recommended courses of action based solely on facts and information from the case.
• Case study can be a person, place, object, issue, event, condition, or phenomenon; a case analysis is a carefully constructed synopsis of events, situations, and behaviors . The research problem dictates the type of case being studied and, therefore, the design can encompass almost anything tangible as long as it fulfills the objective of generating new knowledge and understanding. A case analysis is in the form of a narrative containing descriptions of facts, situations, processes, rules, and behaviors within a particular setting and under a specific set of circumstances.
• Case study can represent an open-ended subject of inquiry; a case analysis is a narrative about something that has happened in the past . A case study is not restricted by time and can encompass an event or issue with no temporal limit or end. For example, the current war in Ukraine can be used as a case study of how medical personnel help civilians during a large military conflict, even though circumstances around this event are still evolving. A case analysis can be used to elicit critical thinking about current or future situations in practice, but the case itself is a narrative about something finite and that has taken place in the past.
• Multiple case studies can be used in a research study; case analysis involves examining a single scenario . Case study research can use two or more cases to examine a problem, often for the purpose of conducting a comparative investigation intended to discover hidden relationships, document emerging trends, or determine variations among different examples. A case analysis assignment typically describes a stand-alone, self-contained situation and any comparisons among cases are conducted during in-class discussions and/or student presentations.

The Case Analysis . Fred Meijer Center for Writing and Michigan Authors. Grand Valley State University; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Ramsey, V. J. and L. D. Dodge. "Case Analysis: A Structured Approach." Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal 6 (November 1981): 27-29; Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods . 6th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2017; Crowe, Sarah et al. “The Case Study Approach.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 11 (2011):  doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-100; Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods . 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing; 1994.

• << Previous: Reviewing Collected Works
• Next: Writing a Case Study >>
• Last Updated: Mar 6, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

• Policy & Compliance
• Clinical Trials

NIH Definition of Clinical Trial Case Studies

The case studies provided below are designed to help you identify whether your study would be considered by NIH to be a clinical trial. Expect the case studies and related guidance to evolve over the upcoming year. For continuity and ease of reference, case studies will retain their original numbering and will not be renumbered if cases are revised or removed.

The simplified case studies apply the following four questions to determine whether NIH would consider the research study to be a clinical trial:

• Does the study involve human participants?
• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention?
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants?
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome?

If the answer to all four questions is “yes,” then the clinical study would be considered a clinical trial according to the NIH definition.

See this page for more information about the NIH definition of a clinical trial.

General Case Studies

Institute or center specific case studies.

The study involves the recruitment of research participants who are randomized to receive one of two approved drugs. It is designed to compare the effects of the drugs on the blood level of a protein.

• Does the study involve human participants? Yes, the study involves human participants.
• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are prospectively assigned to receive an intervention, one of two drugs.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to evaluate the effect of the drugs on the level of the protein in the participants’ blood.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, the effect being evaluated, the level of a protein, is a health-related biomedical outcome.

The study involves the recruitment of research participants with condition Y to receive a drug that has been approved for another indication. It is designed to measure the drug’s effects on the level of a biomarker associated with the severity of condition Y.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are prospectively assigned to receive an intervention, the approved drug.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to evaluate the drug’s effect on the level of the biomarker.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, the effect being evaluated, the level of a biomarker, is a health-related biomedical outcome.

The study involves the recruitment of research participants with condition X to receive investigational compound A. It is designed to assess the pharmacokinetic properties of compound A.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are prospectively assigned to receive an intervention, compound A.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to evaluate how the body interacts with compound A
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, the effect being evaluated, pharmacokinetic properties, is a health-related biomedical outcome.

The study involves the recruitment of research participants with disease X to receive an investigational drug. It is designed to assess safety and determine the maximum tolerated dose of the drug.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are prospectively assigned to receive an intervention, the investigational drug.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to assess safety and determine the maximum tolerated dose of the investigational drug.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, the effect being evaluated, safety and maximum tolerated dose, is a health-related biomedical outcome.

The study involves the recruitment of research participants with disease X to receive a chronic disease management program. It is designed to assess usability and to determine the maximum tolerated dose of the chronic disease program (e.g., how many in-person and telemedicine visits with adequate adherence).

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are prospectively assigned to receive an intervention, the chronic disease management program.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose of the program to obtain adequate adherence.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, the effect being evaluated, tolerable intensity and adequate adherence of the intervention, is a health-related outcome.

The study involves the recruitment of research participants with disease X to receive either an investigational drug or a placebo. It is designed to evaluate the efficacy of the investigational drug to relieve disease symptoms.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are prospectively assigned to receive an intervention, the investigational drug or placebo.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to evaluate the effect of the investigational drug on the participants’ symptoms.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, the effect being evaluated, relief of symptoms, is a health-related outcome.

The study involves the recruitment of research participants with disease X to receive an investigational drug. It is designed to assess whether there is a change in disease progression compared to baseline. There is no concurrent control used in this study.

• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to evaluate the effect of the investigational drug on the subject’s disease progression.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, the effect being evaluated, disease progression, is a health-related outcome.

The study involves the recruitment of research participants with disease X to test an investigational in vitro diagnostic device (IVD). It is designed to evaluate the ability of the device to measure the level of an antibody in blood.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? No, in this context the IVD would not be considered an intervention. The IVD is being used to test its ability to measure antibody levels, but not to test its effects on any health-related biomedical or behavioral outcomes. 

The study involves the recruitment of research participants with disease X to be evaluated with an investigational in vitro diagnostic device (IVD). The study is designed to evaluate how knowledge of certain antibody levels impacts clinical management of disease.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are prospectively assigned to an intervention, measurement of an antibody level, with the idea that knowledge of that antibody level might affect clinical management.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to evaluate how knowledge of the level of an antibody might inform treatment.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, the effect being measured, how blood antibody levels inform treatment, is a health-related outcome.

The study involves the recruitment of healthy volunteers who will be randomized to different durations of sleep deprivation (including no sleep deprivation as a control) and who will have stress hormone levels measured. It is designed to determine whether the levels of stress hormones in blood rise in response to different durations of sleep deprivation.

• Does the study involve human participants? Yes, the healthy volunteers are human participants.
• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are prospectively assigned to an intervention, different durations of sleep deprivation followed by a blood draw.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to measure the effect of different durations of sleep deprivation on stress hormone levels.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, the effect being evaluated, stress hormone levels, is a health-related biomedical outcome.

The study involves the analysis of de-identified, stored blood samples and de-identified medical records of patients with disease X who were treated with an approved drug. The study is designed to evaluate the level of a protein in the blood of patients that is associated with therapeutic effects of the drug.

• Does the study involve human participants? No, the study does not involve human participants because only de-identified samples and information are used.

The study involves the analysis of identifiable, stored blood samples and identified medical records of patients with disease X who were treated with an approved drug. The study is designed to evaluate the level of a protein in the blood of patients that is associated with therapeutic effects of the drug.

• Does the study involve human participants? Yes, patients are human participants because the blood and information are identifiable.
• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? No, secondary research with biospecimens or health information is not a clinical trial.

The study involves the recruitment of a healthy volunteers whose blood is drawn for genomic analysis. It is designed to identify the prevalence of a genetic mutation in the cohort and evaluate potential association between the presence of the mutation and the risk of developing a genetic disorder.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? No, sample collection (blood draw) is not an intervention in this context.

Physicians report that some patients being treated with drug A for disease X are also experiencing some improvement in a second condition, condition Y. The study involves the recruitment of research participants who have disease X and condition Y and are being treated with drug A. The participants are surveyed to ascertain whether they are experiencing an improvement in condition Y.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? No, participants are not prospectively assigned to receive an intervention as they are receiving drugs as part of their clinical care. The surveys are being used for measurement, not to modify a biomedical or behavioral outcome.

The study involves the recruitment of patients with disease X who are receiving one of three standard therapies as part of their clinical care. It is designed to assess the relative effectiveness of the three therapies by monitoring survival rates using medical records over a few years.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? No, there is no intervention. The therapies are prescribed as part of clinical care; they are not prospectively assigned for the purpose of the study. The study is observational.

The study involves the recruitment of research participants with disease X vs. healthy controls and comparing these participants on a range of health processes and outcomes including genomics, biospecimens, self-report measures, etc. to explore differences that may be relevant to the development of disease X.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? No, the measures needed to assess the outcomes are not interventions in this context, as the study is not intended to determine whether the measures modify a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome.

The study involves the recruitment of healthy volunteers for a respiratory challenge study; participants are randomized to receive different combinations of allergens. The study evaluates the severity and mechanism of the immune response to different combinations of allergens introduced via inhalation.

• Does the study involve human participants? Yes, healthy volunteers are human participants.
• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, healthy volunteers are prospectively assigned to randomly selected combinations of allergens.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is evaluating the effects of different combinations of allergens on the immune response in healthy individuals.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, the study evaluates the severity and mechanism of the immune reaction to allergens, which are health-related biomedical outcomes.

The study involves the recruitment of research participants with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) to evaluate the effects of an investigational drug on memory, and retention and recall of information.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, participants are prospectively assigned to receive the investigational drug.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is evaluating the effects of the drug on participants’ memory.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, the study evaluates memory, and retention and recall of information in the context of AD.

The study involves the recruitment of individuals to receive a new behavioral intervention for sedentary behavior. It is designed to measure the effect of the intervention on hypothesized differential mediators of behavior change.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, participants are prospectively assigned to receive a behavioral intervention.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is evaluating the effects of the intervetion on mediators of behavior change.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, the effect being evaluated, mediators of behavior change, are behavioral outcomes relevant to health.

The study involves the recruitment of patients with disease X to be evaluated with a new visual acuity task. It is designed to evaluate the ability of the new task to measure visual acuity as compared with the gold standard Snellen Test

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are prospectively assigned to an intervention, the new visual acuity test.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? No, the study is designed to evaluate the ability of the new visual acuity test to measure visual acuity as compared to the gold standard Snellen Test, but not to modify visual acuity.

The study involves the recruitment of research participants with CHF who were hospitalized before or after implementation of the Medicare incentives to reduce re-hospitalizations. Morbidity, mortality, and quality of life of these participants are evaluated to compare the effects of these Medicare incentives on these outcomes.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? No, the intervention (incentives to reduce re-hospitalization) were assigned by Medicare, not by the research study.

The study involves the recruitment of healthcare providers to assess the extent to which being provided with genomic sequence information about their patients informs their treatment of those patients towards improved outcomes.

• Does the study involve human participants? Yes, both the physicians and the patients are human participants.
• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, physicians are prospectively assigned to receive genomic sequence information, which is the intervention.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to evaluate the effect of intervening with physicians, on the treatment they provide to their patients.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related, biomedical, or behavioral outcome? Yes, the effect being evaluated, the extent to which providing specific information to physicians informs the treatment of patients, is a health-related outcome.

The study involves the recruitment of research participants with a behavioral condition to receive either an investigational behavioral intervention or a behavioral intervention in clinical use. It is designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the investigational intervention compared to the intervention in clinical use in reducing the severity of the obsessive compulsive disorder.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are prospectively assigned to an intervention, either the investigational intervention or an intervention in clinical use.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to evaluate whether the investigational intervention is as effective as the standard intervention, at changing behavior.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related, biomedical, or behavioral outcome? Yes, the effect being evaluated, the interventions’ effectiveness in reducing the severity of the condition, is a health-related behavioral outcome.

The study involves the recruitment of physicians who will be randomly assigned to use a new app or an existing app, which cues directed interviewing techniques. The study is designed to determine whether the new app is better than the existing app at assisting physicians in identifying families in need of social service support. The number of community service referrals will be measured.

• Does the study involve human participants? Yes, both the physicians and the families are human participants.
• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, physicians are prospectively assigned to use one of two apps, which are the interventions.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to evaluate the effect of intervening with physicians, on social service support referral for families.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related, biomedical, or behavioral outcome? Yes, the effect being evaluated, the number of referrals, is a health-related outcome.

The study involves the recruitment of parents to participate in focus groups to discuss topics related to parental self-efficacy and positive parenting behaviors. It is designed to gather information needed to develop an intervention to promote parental self-efficacy and positive parenting behaviors.

• Does the study involve human participants? Yes, the parents are human participants.
• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? No, a focus group is not an intervention.

The study involves the recruitment of healthy volunteers to test a new behavioral intervention. It is designed to evaluate the effect of a meditation intervention on adherence to exercise regimens and quality of life to inform the design of a subsequent, fully-powered trial.

• Does the study involve human participants? Yes, study participants are human participants.
• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are prospectively assigned to a behavioral intervention.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on adherence, and quality of life.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, adherence and quality of life are health-related outcomes.

A study will test the feasibility a mobile phone app designed to increase physical activity. A group of sedentary individuals will use the app for a week while their interactions with the app are monitored. The number of interactions with the app will be measured, as well as any software issues. Participants will also complete a survey indicating their satisfaction with and willingness to use the app, as well as any feedback for improvement. The app’s effect on physical activity, weight, or cardiovascular fitness will not be evaluated.

• Does the study involve human participants? Yes, sedentary individuals will be enrolled.
• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? The participants will interact with the app for a week.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? No. While the participants’ interactions are monitored (steps or heart rate may be recorded in this process), the study is NOT measuring the effect of using the app ON the participant. The study is only measuring the usability and acceptability of the app, and testing for bugs in the software. The effect on physical activity is NOT being measured.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? N/A

The study involves the recruitment of healthy family members of patients hospitalized for disease X to test two CPR training strategies. Participants will receive one of two training strategies. The outcome is improved CPR skills retention.

• Does the study involve human participants? Yes, family members of patients are human participants.
• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are prospectively assigned to one of two CPR educational strategies.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to evaluate the effect of educational strategies on CPR skills.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, retention of CPR skills is a health-related behavioral outcome.

The study involves the recruitment of research participants in three different communities (clusters) to test three CPR training strategies. The rate of out-of- hospital cardiac arrest survival will be compared.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are prospectively assigned to receive one of three types of CPR training, which is the intervention.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to evaluate the effect of different CPR training strategies on patient survival rates post cardiac arrest.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival is a health-related outcome.

A study involves the recruitment of school children to evaluate two different tools for monitoring food intake. Food consumption behavior will be measured by asking children to activate a pocket camera during meals and to use a diary to record consumed food. The accuracy of the two food monitoring methods in measuring energy intake will be assessed.

• Does the study involve human participants? Yes, children are human participants.
• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? No, in this context the monitoring methods would not be considered an intervention. The study is designed to test the accuracy of two monitoring methods, but not to test the effect on any health-related biomedical or behavioral outcomes. 

A study involves the recruitment of school children to evaluate two different tools for monitoring food intake. Food consumption behavior will be measured by asking children to activate a pocket camera during meals and to use a diary to record consumed food. Changes to eating behavior will be assessed.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are prospectively assigned to two food monitoring methods.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to determine whether using the monitoring methods changes eating behavior.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, eating behavior is a health-related outcome.

A study involves the recruitment of children at two schools to monitor eating behavior. Children’s food choices will be monitored using a remote food photography method. Food consumption and the accuracy of food monitoring methods will be assessed.

• Does the study involve human participants? Yes, the children participating in this study are human participants.
• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? No, not in this context. The study involves observing and measuring eating behavior, but not modifying it. This is an observational study.

A study involves the recruitment of children at two schools to evaluate their preferences for graphics and colors used in healthy food advertisements. Children will be presented with multiple health advertisements and their preferences for graphics and colors will be assessed.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are prospectively assigned to see different advertisements.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to evaluate the advertisements.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? No, preferences are not health-related biomedical or behavioral outcomes.

The study involves ambulatory patients who have new-onset stable angina and who are recruited from community practices. They are randomized to undergo CT angiography or an exercise stress test of the doctor’s choice. To keep the trial pragmatic, the investigators do not prescribe a protocol for how physicians should respond to test results. The study is designed to determine whether the initial test (CT angiography or stress test) affects long-term rates of premature death, stroke, or myocardial infarctions.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are randomized to undergo CT angiography or an exercise stress test.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to determine whether the initial test done affects long-term rates of certain clinical events.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, premature death, stroke, and myocardial infarction are health-related biomedical outcomes.

The study involves patients who present with stable angina to community practices. As part of their routine care some of their physicians refer them for CT angiography, while others refer them for exercise stress tests. The study is designed to see whether or not there's an association between the type of test that is chosen and long-term risk of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? No, the intervention is not prospectively assigned by the investigators. Rather, the intervention, in this case diagnostic study, occurs as part of routine clinical care.

The investigators conduct a longitudinal study of patients with schizophrenia. Their physicians, as part of their standard clinical care, prescribe antipsychotic medication. The investigators conduct an imaging session before starting treatment; they repeat imaging 4-6 weeks later.

• Does the study involve human participants? Yes.
• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? No, not in this context.  Antipsychotic medications are given as part of clinical care, not as part of a prospective, approved research protocol.  

The investigators conduct a longitudinal study of patients with schizophrenia. Their physicians, as part of their standard clinical care, prescribe antipsychotic medication. As part of the research protocol, all participants will be prescribed the same dose of the antipsychotic medication. The investigators conduct an imaging session before starting treatment; they repeat imaging 4-6 weeks later.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, although participants are all receiving antipsychotic medication as part of their standard medical care, the dose of the antipsychotic medication is determined by the research protocol, rather than individual clinical need.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants?  Yes, the study is designed to evaluate the effect of a dose of antipsychotic medication on brain function.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome ? Yes, brain function measured by imaging is a health-related outcome.

The study involves recruitment of healthy volunteers who will wear a thermal compression device around their legs. This pilot study is designed to examine preliminary performance and safety of a thermal compression device worn during surgery. Investigators will measure core temperature, comfort, and presence of skin injury in 15-minute intervals.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, participants are assigned to wear a thermal compression device.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants?  Yes, the study is designed to evaluate the effect of the thermal compression device on participant core temperature, comfort, and presence of skin injury.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome ? Yes, participant core temperature, comfort, and presence of skin injury are health-related biomedical outcomes.

The study involves collection of data on hospitalizations for various acute illnesses among people who live close to a border between two states that have recently implemented different laws related to public health (e.g. smoking regulations, soda taxes). The investigators want to take advantage of this “natural experiment” to assess the health impact of the laws.

• Does the study involve human participants?  Yes, the study involves human participants.
• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention?  No, the interventions were assigned by state laws and state of residence, not by the research study.

The study involves recruitment of healthy volunteers to engage in working memory tasks while undergoing transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to induce competing local neuronal activity. The study is measuring task performance to investigate the neural underpinnings of working memory storage and processing.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, healthy volunteers are prospectively assigned to receive TMS stimulation protocols during a working memory task.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is evaluating the effects of local TMS stimulation on working memory performance and oscillatory brain activity in healthy individuals.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, the study evaluates working memory processes, which are health-related biomedical outcomes.

The study involves recruitment of healthy volunteers to engage in a social valuation task while dopamine tone in the brain is manipulated using tolcapone, an FDA-approved medication. The study aims to understand the role of dopamine in social decision-making and to search for neural correlates of this valuation using fMRI.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, healthy volunteers are prospectively assigned to receive tolcapone during a social valuation task.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is evaluating the effects of modulating dopamine tone on social decision-making. Although this study uses an FDA-approved drug to modulate dopamine tone, the goal of this intervention is to understand the role of dopamine in a fundamental phenomenon (social valuation), and not to study the mechanism of action of the drug or its clinical effects.

The career development candidate proposes to independently lead a study to test a new drug A on patients with disease X. Patients will be randomized to a test and control group, with the test group receiving one dose of drug A per week for 12 months and controls receiving placebo. To assess presence, number, and type of any polyps, a colonoscopy will be performed. To assess biomarkers of precancerous lesions, colon mucosal biopsies will be collected. Complete blood count will be measured, and plasma will be stored for potential biomarker evaluation.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are prospectively assigned to receive an intervention, drug A or placebo.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to evaluate the effect of drug A and placebo on the presence and type of polyps.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, the effect being evaluated, the presence and type of polyps, is a health-related biomedical outcome.

Ancillary Study to Case Study #42b: Some types of drug A being evaluated in Case Study #42a have been reported to impact renal function. An internal medicine fellow performs an ancillary study where stored plasma from Case Study #42a will be evaluated for multiple biomarkers of renal function.

• Does the study involve human participants? Yes, patients are human participants because the plasma and information are identifiable.
• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? No, because the assignment of participants to an intervention occurs as part of an existing, separately funded clinical trial. This proposal would be considered an ancillary study that is not an independent clinical trial.

Ancillary Study to Case Study #42a: An internal medicine fellow designs an independent ancillary trial where a subset of patients from the parent trial in Case Study #42a will also receive drug B, based on the assumption that a two-drug combination will work significantly better than a single drug at both improving renal function and reducing polyps. The test subjects will be evaluated for renal function via plasma clearance rates at 6 and 12 months after initiation of drugs A and B.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are prospectively assigned to receive an intervention, drugs A and B.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to evaluate the effect of drugs A and B on renal function.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, the effect being evaluated, renal function, is a health-related biomedical outcome.

A group of healthy young adults will perform a Go/No-Go task while undergoing fMRI scans. The purpose of the study is to characterize the pattern of neural activation in the frontal cortex during response inhibition, and the ability of the participant to correctly withhold a response on no-go

• Does the study involve human participants? Yes, healthy young adults will be enrolled in this study.
• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants will be prospectively assigned to perform a Go/No-Go task, which involves different levels of inhibitory control.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to evaluate the effect of the Go/No-Go task on neural activation in the frontal cortex. The study will measure inhibitory control and the neural systems being engaged. In this study, the Go/No-Go task is the independent variable, and behavioral performance and the associated fMRI activations are the dependent variables.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, the neural correlates of inhibitory control and behavioral performance are health-related biomedical outcomes.

A group of adolescents will participate in a longitudinal study examining changes in executive function over the course of a normal school year. Color naming performance on the standard version of the Stroop test will be obtained. All measures will be compared at multiple time points during the school year to examine changes in executive function. The purpose is to observe changes in executive function and to observe if differences exist in the Stroop effect over the course of the school year for these adolescents.

• Does the study involve human participants? Yes, adolescents will be enrolled in this study.
• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? No, there is no intervention in this study and no independent variable manipulated. The adolescents are not prospectively assigned to an intervention, but instead the investigator will examine variables of interest (including the Stroop test) over time. The Stroop effect is used as a measurement of point-in-time data.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? No, there is no intervention. Performance on the Stroop test is a well-established measure of executive function and the test is not providing an independent variable of interest here. It is not being used to manipulate the participants or their environment. The purpose is simply to obtain a measure of executive function in adolescents over the course of the school year.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? N/A. No effect of an intervention is being evaluated.

A group of participants with social anxiety will perform an experimentally manipulated Stroop test. In this variant of the Stroop test, the stimuli presented are varied to include emotional and neutral facial expressions presented in different colors. Participants are instructed to name the colors of the faces presented, with the expectation that they will be slower to name the color of the emotional face than the neutral face. The purpose of the study is to examine the degree to which participants with social anxiety will be slower to process emotional faces than neutral faces.

• Does the study involve human participants? Yes, participants with social anxiety will be enrolled in this study.
• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants will be prospectively assigned to perform a modified Stroop test using different colored emotional/neutral faces to explore emotional processing in people with social anxiety. Note that the independent variable is the presentation of emotional vs neutral faces.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to measure the effect of emotional valence (i.e. emotional faces) on participant response time to name the color. The purpose is to determine whether the response time to emotional faces is exaggerated for people with social anxiety as compared to neutral faces. Note that the response time to name the colors is the dependent variable in this study.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, the processing of emotional information is a health-related biomedical outcome.

The study involves healthy volunteers and compares temporal SNR obtained with a new fMRI pulse sequence with that from another sequence.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? No, in this context the different pulse sequences would not be considered an intervention. The pulse sequences are not being used to modify any biomedical or behavioral outcome; rather the investigator is comparing performance characteristics of the two pulse sequences.

The study is designed to demonstrate that a new imaging technology (e.g. MRI, PET, ultrasound technologies, or image processing algorithm) is equivalent to, or has better sensitivity/specificity than a standard of care imaging technology. Aim one will use the new imaging technology and the gold standard in ten healthy volunteers. Aim Two will use the new imaging technology and the gold standard before and after a standard care procedure in ten patients. In both aims the performance of the new technology will be compared to the gold standard. No clinical care decisions will be made based on the use of the device in this study.

• Does the study involve human participants? YES. Aim one will study ten healthy volunteers, and aim two will study ten patient volunteers.
• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, participants will be prospectively assigned to be evaluated with a new imaging technology and the gold standard technology.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? No, the study is not measuring the effect of the technologies ON the human subjects. The study is determining if the new technology is equivalent or better than the gold standard technology. No effect on the participant is being measured.

An investigator proposes to add secondary outcomes to an already funded clinical trial of a nutritional intervention. The trial is supported by other funding, but the investigator is interested in obtaining NIH funding for studying oral health outcomes. Participants in the existing trial would be assessed for oral health outcomes at baseline and at additional time points during a multi-week dietary intervention. The oral health outcomes would include measures of gingivitis and responses to oral health related quality of life questionnaires. Oral fluids would be collected for analysis of inflammatory markers and microbiome components.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? No, because the assignment of participants to an intervention (and the administration of the intervention) occur as part of an existing, separately funded clinical trial. This proposal would be considered an ancillary study that leverages an already existing clinical trial.

The goal of the project is to use functional neuroimaging to distinguish patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) who experience TMD pain through centralized pain processes from those with TMD related to peripheral pain. Pain processing in a study cohort of TMD patients and healthy controls will be measured through functional magnetic resonance neuroimaging (fMRI) following transient stimulation of pain pathways through multimodal automated quantitative sensory testing (MAST QST). TMD patients will receive study questionnaires to better correlate the extent to which TMD pain centralization influences TMD prognosis and response to standard of care peripherally targeted treatment (prescribed by physicians, independently of the study).

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? No, not in this context. The transient stimulation of pain pathways and the fMRI are being performed to measure and describe brain activity, but not to modify it.

An investigator proposes to perform a study of induced gingivitis in healthy humans, to study microbial colonization and inflammation under conditions of health and disease. During a 3-week gingivitis induction period, each study participant will use a stent to cover the teeth in one quadrant during teeth brushing. A contralateral uncovered quadrant will be exposed to the individual's usual oral hygiene procedures, to serve as a control. Standard clinical assessments for gingivitis will be made and biospecimens will be collected at the point of maximal induced gingivitis, and again after normal oral hygiene is resumed. Biospecimens will be assessed for microbial composition and levels of inflammation-associated chemokines.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are prospectively assigned to an intervention, abstaining from normal oral hygiene for a portion of the mouth, to induce gingivitis.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to evaluate the effect of the induced gingivitis on microbial composition and levels of inflammatory chemokines in oral samples.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, the microbial composition and chemokine levels in oral samples are health-related biomedical outcomes.

The study will enroll older adults with hearing loss, comparing the effectiveness of enhanced hearing health care (HHC) to usual HHC. In addition to routine hearing-aid consultation and fitting, participants randomized to enhanced HCC will be provided patient-centered information and education about a full range of hearing assistive technologies and services. Study outcomes include the utilization of technology or services, quality of life, communication abilities, and cognitive function.

• Does the study involve human participants? Yes, the study enrolls older adults with hearing loss.
• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, participants are randomized to receive enhanced HCC or usual HCC interventions.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study will evaluate enhanced HCC’s effectiveness in modifying participant behavior and biomedical outcomes.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, rate of technology/service utilization is a behavioral outcome and quality of life, communications, and cognition are biomedical outcomes that may be impacted by the interventions.

The study involves the recruitment of obese individuals who will undergo a muscle biopsy before and after either exercise training or diet-induced weight loss. Sarcolemmal 1,2-disaturated DAG and C18:0 ceramide species and mitochondrial function will be measured. Levels will be correlated with insulin sensitivity.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are assigned to either exercise training or a diet.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to compare the effects of the interventions on muscle metabolism.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, muscle metabolism/signaling is a health-related outcome.

The study involves the recruitment of participants with type 2 diabetes who will undergo a muscle biopsy before and after a fast to measure acetylation on lysine 23 of the mitochondrial solute carrier adenine nucleotide translocase 1 (ANT1). Levels will be related to rates of fat oxidation.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are assigned to undergo a fast.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to compare the effects of the fast on molecular parameters of metabolism.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, metabolism is a health-related outcome.

Insulin-resistant and insulin-sensitive nondiabetic adults who have a parent with type 2 diabetes will be followed over time to understand the role of mitochondrial dysfunction in the development of diabetes. Oral glucose tolerance tests will be performed annually to measure insulin sensitivity and glycemic status. Participants will also undergo a brief bout of exercise, and mitochondrial ATP synthesis rates will be measured by assessing the rate of recovery of phosphocreatine in the leg muscle, using 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? No, the participants are not assigned to an intervention; the OGTT and 31P MRS are measures.

Participants with chronic kidney disease will be recruited to receive one of two drug agents. After 6 weeks of therapy, subjects will undergo vascular function testing and have measures of oxidative stress evaluated in their plasma and urine. Results of the function testing and the oxidative stress biomarkers will be related to drug treatment.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are assigned to receive two different drugs.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to compare the effects of the drugs on vascular function.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, vascular function is a health-related outcome.

Participants with Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease will be recruited to receive an oral curcumin therapy or placebo and the participants will undergo vascular function testing, renal imaging to assess kidney size, and assessment of oxidative stress biomarkers in urine and plasma after an ascorbic acid challenge. Changes in these outcomes will be related to oral therapy.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are assigned to receive medication or placebo.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? Yes, the study is designed to compare the effects of the drugs on vascular function and kidney size.
• Is the effect being evaluated a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome? Yes, vascular function and kidney size are health-related outcomes.

Kidney transplant recipients will be recruited to undergo an experimental imaging procedure at several timepoints up to 4 months post-transplantation. Output from the images will be related to pathological assessments of the transplant as well as clinical measures of renal function.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? No, the participants are not assigned to receive an intervention. They undergo transplantation as part of their routine clinical care. The imaging procedure is a measure and not an intervention.

The study proposes the development of a novel probe to assess clearance of a nutritional metabolite in a given disease state. The probe is a GMP grade, deuterated, intravenously administered tracer and clearance is assessed by mass spectrometry analysis of serial blood draws. Participants will either receive a micronutrient supplement or will receive no supplementation. The clearance rate of the probe will be compared in the two groups, to understand the performance of the probe.

• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are assigned to receive either a micronutrient supplement or nothing.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? No, the intervention is being used to assess the performance of the probe and is not looking at an effect on the participant.
• Are the participants prospectively assigned to an intervention? Yes, the participants are assigned to receive a controlled diet for three days.
• Is the study designed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the participants? No, the intervention (controlled diet) is being used to minimize exogenous dietary sources of oxalate in the participants prior to the labeled tracer infusion. The study will not be evaluating the effect of the diet on the participants.

This page last updated on: April 28, 2021

• Bookmark & Share
• E-mail Updates
• Help Downloading Files
• Privacy Notice
• Accessibility
• National Institutes of Health (NIH), 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892
• NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Case Study | Definition, Examples & Methods

Case Study | Definition, Examples & Methods

Published on 5 May 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 30 January 2023.

A case study is a detailed study of a specific subject, such as a person, group, place, event, organisation, or phenomenon. Case studies are commonly used in social, educational, clinical, and business research.

A case study research design usually involves qualitative methods , but quantitative methods are sometimes also used. Case studies are good for describing , comparing, evaluating, and understanding different aspects of a research problem .

Table of contents

When to do a case study, step 1: select a case, step 2: build a theoretical framework, step 3: collect your data, step 4: describe and analyse the case.

A case study is an appropriate research design when you want to gain concrete, contextual, in-depth knowledge about a specific real-world subject. It allows you to explore the key characteristics, meanings, and implications of the case.

Case studies are often a good choice in a thesis or dissertation . They keep your project focused and manageable when you don’t have the time or resources to do large-scale research.

You might use just one complex case study where you explore a single subject in depth, or conduct multiple case studies to compare and illuminate different aspects of your research problem.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Once you have developed your problem statement and research questions , you should be ready to choose the specific case that you want to focus on. A good case study should have the potential to:

• Provide new or unexpected insights into the subject
• Challenge or complicate existing assumptions and theories
• Propose practical courses of action to resolve a problem
• Open up new directions for future research

Unlike quantitative or experimental research, a strong case study does not require a random or representative sample. In fact, case studies often deliberately focus on unusual, neglected, or outlying cases which may shed new light on the research problem.

If you find yourself aiming to simultaneously investigate and solve an issue, consider conducting action research . As its name suggests, action research conducts research and takes action at the same time, and is highly iterative and flexible. 

However, you can also choose a more common or representative case to exemplify a particular category, experience, or phenomenon.

While case studies focus more on concrete details than general theories, they should usually have some connection with theory in the field. This way the case study is not just an isolated description, but is integrated into existing knowledge about the topic. It might aim to:

• Exemplify a theory by showing how it explains the case under investigation
• Expand on a theory by uncovering new concepts and ideas that need to be incorporated
• Challenge a theory by exploring an outlier case that doesn’t fit with established assumptions

To ensure that your analysis of the case has a solid academic grounding, you should conduct a literature review of sources related to the topic and develop a theoretical framework . This means identifying key concepts and theories to guide your analysis and interpretation.

There are many different research methods you can use to collect data on your subject. Case studies tend to focus on qualitative data using methods such as interviews, observations, and analysis of primary and secondary sources (e.g., newspaper articles, photographs, official records). Sometimes a case study will also collect quantitative data .

The aim is to gain as thorough an understanding as possible of the case and its context.

In writing up the case study, you need to bring together all the relevant aspects to give as complete a picture as possible of the subject.

How you report your findings depends on the type of research you are doing. Some case studies are structured like a standard scientific paper or thesis, with separate sections or chapters for the methods , results , and discussion .

Others are written in a more narrative style, aiming to explore the case from various angles and analyse its meanings and implications (for example, by using textual analysis or discourse analysis ).

In all cases, though, make sure to give contextual details about the case, connect it back to the literature and theory, and discuss how it fits into wider patterns or debates.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, January 30). Case Study | Definition, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved 29 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/case-studies/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, correlational research | guide, design & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, descriptive research design | definition, methods & examples.

Types of Case Studies

There are several different types of case studies, as well as several types of subjects of case studies. We will investigate each type in this article.

Different Types of Case Studies

There are several types of case studies, each differing from each other based on the hypothesis and/or thesis to be proved. It is also possible for types of case studies to overlap each other.

Each of the following types of cases can be used in any field or discipline. Whether it is psychology, business or the arts, the type of case study can apply to any field.

Explanatory

The explanatory case study focuses on an explanation for a question or a phenomenon. Basically put, an explanatory case study is 1 + 1 = 2. The results are not up for interpretation.

A case study with a person or group would not be explanatory, as with humans, there will always be variables. There are always small variances that cannot be explained.

However, event case studies can be explanatory. For example, let's say a certain automobile has a series of crashes that are caused by faulty brakes. All of the crashes are a result of brakes not being effective on icy roads.

What kind of case study is explanatory? Think of an example of an explanatory case study that could be done today

When developing the case study, the researcher will explain the crash, and the detailed causes of the brake failure. They will investigate what actions caused the brakes to fail, and what actions could have been taken to prevent the failure.

Other car companies could then use this case study to better understand what makes brakes fail. When designing safer products, looking to past failures is an excellent way to ensure similar mistakes are not made.

The same can be said for other safety issues in cars. There was a time when cars did not have seatbelts. The process to get seatbelts required in all cars started with a case study! The same can be said about airbags and collapsible steering columns. They all began with a case study that lead to larger research, and eventual change.

Exploratory

An exploratory case study is usually the precursor to a formal, large-scale research project. The case study's goal is to prove that further investigation is necessary.

For example, an exploratory case study could be done on veterans coming home from active combat. Researchers are aware that these vets have PTSD, and are aware that the actions of war are what cause PTSD. Beyond that, they do not know if certain wartime activities are more likely to contribute to PTSD than others.

For an exploratory case study, the researcher could develop a study that certain war events are more likely to cause PTSD. Once that is demonstrated, a large-scale research project could be done to determine which events are most likely to cause PTSD.

Exploratory case studies are very popular in psychology and the social sciences. Psychologists are always looking for better ways to treat their patients, and exploratory studies allow them to research new ideas or theories.

Multiple-Case Studies or Collective Studies

Multiple case or collective studies use information from different studies to formulate the case for a new study. The use of past studies allows additional information without needing to spend more time and money on additional studies.

Using the PTSD issue again is an excellent example of a collective study. When studying what contributes most to wartime PTSD, a researcher could use case studies from different war. For instance, studies about PTSD in WW2 vets, Persian Gulf War vets, and Vietnam vets could provide an excellent sampling of which wartime activities are most likely to cause PTSD.

If a multiple case study on vets was done with vets from the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War, and the Iraq War, and it was determined the vets from Vietnam had much less PTSD, what could be inferred?

Furthermore, this type of study could uncover differences as well. For example, a researcher might find that veterans who serve in the Middle East are more likely to suffer a certain type of ailment. Or perhaps, that veterans who served with large platoons were more likely to suffer from PTSD than veterans who served in smaller platoons.

An intrinsic case study is the study of a case wherein the subject itself is the primary interest. The "Genie" case is an example of this. The study wasn't so much about psychology, but about Genie herself, and how her experiences shaped who she was.

Genie is the topic. Genie is what the researchers are interested in, and what their readers will be most interested in. When the researchers started the study, they didn't know what they would find.

They asked the question…"If a child is never introduced to language during the crucial first years of life, can they acquire language skills when they are older?" When they met Genie, they didn't know the answer to that question.

Instrumental

An instrumental case study uses a case to gain insights into a phenomenon. For example, a researcher interested in child obesity rates might set up a study with middle school students and an exercise program. In this case, the children and the exercise program are not the focus. The focus is learning the relationship between children and exercise, and why certain children become obese.

What is an example of an instrumental case study?

Focus on the results, not the topic!

Types of Subjects of Case Studies

There are generally five different types of case studies, and the subjects that they address. Every case study, whether explanatory or exploratory, or intrinsic or instrumental, fits into one of these five groups. These are:

Person – This type of study focuses on one particular individual. This case study would use several types of research to determine an outcome.

The best example of a person case is the "Genie" case study. Again, "Genie" was a 13-year-old girl who was discovered by social services in Los Angeles in 1970. Her father believed her to be mentally retarded, and therefore locked her in a room without any kind of stimulation. She was never nourished or cared for in any way. If she made a noise, she was beaten.

When "Genie" was discovered, child development specialists wanted to learn as much as possible about how her experiences contributed to her physical, emotional and mental health. They also wanted to learn about her language skills. She had no form of language when she was found, she only grunted. The study would determine whether or not she could learn language skills at the age of 13.

Since Genie was placed in a children's hospital, many different clinicians could observe her. In addition, researchers were able to interview the few people who did have contact with Genie and would be able to gather whatever background information was available.

This case study is still one of the most valuable in all of child development. Since it would be impossible to conduct this type of research with a healthy child, the information garnered from Genie's case is invaluable.

Group – This type of study focuses on a group of people. This could be a family, a group or friends, or even coworkers.

An example of this type of case study would be the uncontacted tribes of Indians in the Peruvian and Brazilian rainforest. These tribes have never had any modern contact. Therefore, there is a great interest to study them.

Scientists would be interested in just about every facet of their lives. How do they cook, how do they make clothing, how do they make tools and weapons. Also, doing psychological and emotional research would be interesting. However, because so few of these tribes exist, no one is contacting them for research. For now, all research is done observationally.

If a researcher wanted to study uncontacted Indian tribes, and could only observe the subjects, what type of observations should be made?

Location – This type of study focuses on a place, and how and why people use the place.

For example, many case studies have been done about Siberia, and the people who live there. Siberia is a cold and barren place in northern Russia, and it is considered the most difficult place to live in the world. Studying the location, and it's weather and people can help other people learn how to live with extreme weather and isolation.

Location studies can also be done on locations that are facing some kind of change. For example, a case study could be done on Alaska, and whether the state is seeing the effects of climate change.

Another type of study that could be done in Alaska is how the environment changes as population increases. Geographers and those interested in population growth often do these case studies.

Organization/Company – This type of study focuses on a business or an organization. This could include the people who work for the company, or an event that occurred at the organization.

An excellent example of this type of case study is Enron. Enron was one of the largest energy company's in the United States, when it was discovered that executives at the company were fraudulently reporting the company's accounting numbers.

Once the fraud was uncovered, investigators discovered willful and systematic corruption that caused the collapse of Enron, as well as their financial auditors, Arthur Andersen. The fraud was so severe that the top executives of the company were sentenced to prison.

This type of case study is used by accountants, auditors, financiers, as well as business students, in order to learn how such a large company could get away with committing such a serious case of corporate fraud for as long as they did. It can also be looked at from a psychological standpoint, as it is interesting to learn why the executives took the large risks that they took.

Most company or organization case studies are done for business purposes. In fact, in many business schools, such as Harvard Business School, students learn by the case method, which is the study of case studies. They learn how to solve business problems by studying the cases of businesses that either survived the same problem, or one that didn't survive the problem.

Event – This type of study focuses on an event, whether cultural or societal, and how it affects those that are affected by it. An example would be the Tylenol cyanide scandal. This event affected Johnson & Johnson, the parent company, as well as the public at large.

The case study would detail the events of the scandal, and more specifically, what management at Johnson & Johnson did to correct the problem. To this day, when a company experiences a large public relations scandal, they look to the Tylenol case study to learn how they managed to survive the scandal.

A very popular topic for case studies was the events of September 11 th . There were studies in almost all of the different types of research studies.

Obviously the event itself was a very popular topic. It was important to learn what lead up to the event, and how best to proven it from happening in the future. These studies are not only important to the U.S. government, but to other governments hoping to prevent terrorism in their countries.

Planning A Case Study

You have decided that you want to research and write a case study. Now what? In this section you will learn how to plan and organize a research case study.

Selecting a Case

The first step is to choose the subject, topic or case. You will want to choose a topic that is interesting to you, and a topic that would be of interest to your potential audience. Ideally you have a passion for the topic, as then you will better understand the issues surrounding the topic, and which resources would be most successful in the study.

You also must choose a topic that would be of interest to a large number of people. You want your case study to reach as large an audience as possible, and a topic that is of interest to just a few people will not have a very large reach. One of the goals of a case study is to reach as many people as possible.

Who is your audience?

Are you trying to reach the layperson? Or are you trying to reach other professionals in your field? Your audience will help determine the topic you choose.

If you are writing a case study that is looking for ways to lower rates of child obesity, who is your audience?

If you are writing a psychology case study, you must consider whether your audience will have the intellectual skills to understand the information in the case. Does your audience know the vocabulary of psychology? Do they understand the processes and structure of the field?

You want your audience to have as much general knowledge as possible. When it comes time to write the case study, you may have to spend some time defining and explaining terms that might be unfamiliar to the audience.

Lastly, when selecting a topic you do not want to choose a topic that is very old. Current topics are always the most interesting, so if your topic is more than 5-10 years old, you might want to consider a newer topic. If you choose an older topic, you must ask yourself what new and valuable information do you bring to the older topic, and is it relevant and necessary.

Determine Research Goals

What type of case study do you plan to do?

An illustrative case study will examine an unfamiliar case in order to help others understand it. For example, a case study of a veteran with PTSD can be used to help new therapists better understand what veterans experience.

An exploratory case study is a preliminary project that will be the precursor to a larger study in the future. For example, a case study could be done challenging the efficacy of different therapy methods for vets with PTSD. Once the study is complete, a larger study could be done on whichever method was most effective.

A critical instance case focuses on a unique case that doesn't have a predetermined purpose. For example, a vet with an incredibly severe case of PTSD could be studied to find ways to treat his condition.

Ethics are a large part of the case study process, and most case studies require ethical approval. This approval usually comes from the institution or department the researcher works for. Many universities and research institutions have ethics oversight departments. They will require you to prove that you will not harm your study subjects or participants.

This should be done even if the case study is on an older subject. Sometimes publishing new studies can cause harm to the original participants. Regardless of your personal feelings, it is essential the project is brought to the ethics department to ensure your project can proceed safely.

Developing the Case Study

Once you have your topic, it is time to start planning and developing the study. This process will be different depending on what type of case study you are planning to do. For thissection, we will assume a psychological case study, as most case studies are based on the psychological model.

Once you have the topic, it is time to ask yourself some questions. What question do you want to answer with the study?

For example, a researcher is considering a case study about PTSD in veterans. The topic is PTSD in veterans. What questions could be asked?

Do veterans from Middle Eastern wars suffer greater instances of PTSD?

Do younger soldiers have higher instances of PTSD?

Does the length of the tour effect the severity of PTSD?

Each of these questions is a viable question, and finding the answers, or the possible answers, would be helpful for both psychologists and veterans who suffer from PTSD.

Research Notebook

1. What is the background of the case study? Who requested the study to be done and why? What industry is the study in, and where will the study take place?

2. What is the problem that needs a solution? What is the situation, and what are the risks?

3. What questions are required to analyze the problem? What questions might the reader of the study have? What questions might colleagues have?

4. What tools are required to analyze the problem? Is data analysis necessary?

5. What is your current knowledge about the problem or situation? How much background information do you need to procure? How will you obtain this background info?

6. What other information do you need to know to successfully complete the study?

7. How do you plan to present the report? Will it be a simple written report, or will you add PowerPoint presentations or images or videos? When is the report due? Are you giving yourself enough time to complete the project?

The research notebook is the heart of the study. Other organizational methods can be utilized, such as Microsoft Excel, but a physical notebook should always be kept as well.

Planning the Research

The most important parts of the case study are:

1. The case study's questions

2. The study's propositions

3. How information and data will be analyzed

4. The logic behind the propositions

5. How the findings will be interpreted

The study's questions should be either a "how" or "why" question, and their definition is the researchers first job. These questions will help determine the study's goals.

Not every case study has a proposition. If you are doing an exploratory study, you will not have propositions. Instead, you will have a stated purpose, which will determine whether your study is successful, or not.

How the information will be analyzed will depend on what the topic is. This would vary depending on whether it was a person, group, or organization.

When setting up your research, you will want to follow case study protocol. The protocol should have the following sections:

1. An overview of the case study, including the objectives, topic and issues.

2. Procedures for gathering information and conducting interviews.

3. Questions that will be asked during interviews and data collection.

4. A guide for the final case study report.

When deciding upon which research methods to use, these are the most important:

1. Documents and archival records

2. Interviews

3. Direct observations

4. Indirect observations, or observations of subjects

5. Physical artifacts and tools

Documents could include almost anything, including letters, memos, newspaper articles, Internet articles, other case studies, or any other document germane to the study.

Archival records can include military and service records, company or business records, survey data or census information.

Research Strategy

Before beginning the study you want a clear research strategy. Your best chance at success will be if you use an outline that describes how you will gather your data and how you will answer your research questions.

The researcher should create a list with four or five bullet points that need answers. Consider the approaches for these questions, and the different perspectives you could take.

The researcher should then choose at least two data sources (ideally more). These sources could include interviews, Internet research, and fieldwork or report collection. The more data sources used, the better the quality of the final data.

The researcher then must formulate interview questions that will result in detailed and in-depth answers that will help meet the research goals. A list of 15-20 questions is a good start, but these can and will change as the process flows.

Planning Interviews

The interview process is one of the most important parts of the case study process. But before this can begin, it is imperative the researcher gets informed consent from the subjects.

The process of informed consent means the subject understands their role in the study, and that their story will be used in the case study. You will want to have each subject complete a consent form.

The researcher must explain what the study is trying to achieve, and how their contribution will help the study. If necessary, assure the subject that their information will remain private if requested, and they do not need to use their real name if they are not comfortable with that. Pseudonyms are commonly used in case studies.

Informed Consent

The process by which permission is granted before beginning medical or psychological research

A fictitious name used to hide ones identity

It is important the researcher is clear regarding the expectations of the study participation. For example, are they comfortable on camera? Do they mind if their photo is used in the final written study.

Interviews are one of the most important sources of information for case studies. There are several types of interviews. They are:

Open-ended – This type of interview has the interviewer and subject talking to each other about the subject. The interviewer asks questions, and the subject answers them. But the subject can elaborate and add information whenever they see fit.

A researcher might meet with a subject multiple times, and use the open-ended method. This can be a great way to gain insight into events. However, the researcher mustn't rely solely on the information from the one subject, and be sure to have multiple sources.

Focused – This type of interview is used when the subject is interviewed for a short period of time, and answers a set of questions. This type of interview could be used to verify information learned in an open-ended interview with another subject. Focused interviews are normally done to confirm information, not to gain new information.

Structured – Structured interviews are similar to surveys. These are usually used when collecting data for large groups, like neighborhoods. The questions are decided before hand, and the expected answers are usually simple.

When conducting interviews, the answers are obviously important. But just as important are the observations that can be made. This is one of the reasons in-person interviews are preferable over phone interviews, or Internet or mail surveys.

Ideally, when conducing in-person interviews, more than one researcher should be present. This allows one researcher to focus on observing while the other is interviewing. This is particularly important when interviewing large groups of people.

The researcher must understand going into the case study that the information gained from the interviews might not be valuable. It is possible that once the interviews are completed, the information gained is not relevant.

• Course Catalog
• Group Discounts
• Gift Certificates
• For Libraries
• CEU Verification
• Medical Terminology
• Accounting Course
• Writing Basics
• QuickBooks Training
• Proofreading Class
• Sensitivity Training
• Excel Certificate
• Teach Online
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy

Multiple Case Research Design

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

• First Online: 10 November 2021

Cite this chapter

• Stefan Hunziker 3 &
• Michael Blankenagel 3  

5012 Accesses

6 Citations

This chapter addresses the peculiarities, characteristics, and major fallacies of multiple case research designs. The major advantage of multiple case research lies in cross-case analysis. A multiple case research design shifts the focus from understanding a single case to the differences and similarities between cases. Thus, it is not just conducting more (second, third, etc.) case studies. Rather, it is the next step in developing a theory about factors driving differences and similarities. Also, researchers find relevant information on how to write a multiple case research design paper and learn about typical methodologies used for this research design. The chapter closes with referring to overlapping and adjacent research designs.

Download chapter PDF

When you have finished studying this chapter, you will be able to:

understand the purpose of multiple case research: in-depth analysis of a small sample in its environmental context

explain why there is a trade-off between in-depth analysis and sample size

embrace the contextual conditions as part of the research process

understand that multiple case research is based on non-random sampling

understand that this design focuses on differences and similarities between cases

in-depth analysis of a small sample in its environmental context

trade-off between in-depth and size of sample

contextual conditions are part of the research process

non-random sampling of cases

focuses on differences and similarities between cases

9.1 General Description of Multiple Case Research Design

We see potential advantages of multiple case research in the cross-case analysis. A comprehensive comparison in cross-case analysis reveals similarities and differences and how they impact findings. Every case is analyzed as a stand-alone case to compare the mechanisms identified, contributing to potential theoretical conclusions (Vaughan, 1992 ). Case study research is a means of advancing theories by comparing similarities and differences among multiple cases (Ridder, 2017 ).

Regarding the number of cases examined, we distinguish between single case studies and multiple case studies (Stake, 2005 ). A single case can be, for example, the operation of one drug-rehab clinic. A multiple case might involve looking at several drug-rehab clinics operating in the health care industry. Individual cases may represent criticality, extremeness, uniqueness, representativeness, and typicality. Individual case studies are useful to examine conflicting theoretical findings. Also, they serve as a basis to gain new insights into an unexplored phenomenon. With a multiple case study, researchers conduct an in-depth analysis of several cases. First, an investigation of individual cases is conducted. Later, these individual results are combined. Researchers try to find similarities and differences. A major advantage of multiple case studies over individual case studies is that researchers can compare their findings. Thus, the results of multiple case research are more robust but might not be as detailed as in single case research. The major disadvantage compared to single case research is that they tie up more resources and are more costly if they try to achieve a similar depth of analysis. Sometimes, a comparative analysis is not possible because of a lack of comparable cases.

Yin ( 2014 ) differentiates not only between single and multiple case research. He adds two further distinctions “holistic” (a comprehensive analysis of a system) and “embedded” (the unit of analysis part of another system, e.g., the nursery within a hospital). Yin ( 2014 ) suggests five rationales for conducting only single case research, that is for critical, extreme, typical, revelatory, or longitudinal cases. Thus, we cannot provide a general answer to whether a single case study or multiple case study is preferable. This always depends on the specific aim, the cases, and the resources. We distinguish several units of analysis within a case. This allows the object of analysis to be analyzed from different perspectives. We conclude that there is no ideal number of cases. It always depends on the research question, the resources, and the accessibility of the cases. Yet, a multiple case research design may lead to more robust results. This specifically holds true in inductive theory building (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007 ). We believe that gaining access to suitable cases (e.g., companies of a specific industry) represents one of the most challenging steps in the entire research process (Walsham, 2006 ). Thus, looking for cases and checking accessibility is an important step that must be done before honing the research question(s).

Yin states that in multiple case research, each case must be selected so that it predicts similar results (literal replication) or predicts contrasting results but for expected reasons (theoretical replication). If multiple cases lead to contradictory results, the preliminary theory must be revised and tested with other cases. Both single and multiple case designs can be holistic (one unit of analysis per case) or embedded (multiple units of analysis per case) (Yin, 2014 ).

Opportunistic and convenient sampling

A general challenge in empirical studies is the access to a sufficiently large number of interview partners who reserve time for an interview (or other methods of data retrieval). To find companies for a research project, we can apply an opportunistic and convenient sampling strategy based on the approach of Bruns and McKinnon ( 1993 ): “the corporations taking part in our study comprise a non-random sample selected on the basis of location and accessibility, personal contacts and expected willingness to help with the research process” (p. 90). This obviously constitutes a sample bias, but at least the researcher can retrieve information. Thus, personal contacts and contacts through the researcher’s network can be used for the selection of the sample. Also, companies can be contacted by letter with the request for a possible interview. Finally, we may search interview partners publishing articles in relevant academic and professional journals.

Purposive sampling.

For example, a research project about risk management only considers non-financial companies for sampling purposes. This is reasoned as follows. Financial companies can be understood as so-called “risk management entities”. Their business activities and their stricter regulatory environment require significantly different risk management approaches. Therefore, they are not comparable to non-financial companies and are excluded from the sample.

9.2 Particularities of Multiple Case Research Design

In this section, we specifically address the elements that make a multiple case a discrete research design. Next to the characteristics of multiple case research, we address the main issues and decisions to be made within this research design, and the major pitfalls.

9.2.1 Characteristics of Multiple Case Research

In this section, we elaborate on the key characteristics of multiple case research along the steps of the research process.

The typical conclusion of a multiple case study is that cases are similar or different from certain elements, relationships, and conditions. This might be expressed in a categorization of cases. The elements, relationships and conditions might need to be included in a general theory.

Intellectual contribution

The intellectual contribution of a multiple case study is establishing preliminary categories of elements, relationships and conditions and elaborating theories by including these categories (either by adding them to the theory or by differentiating existing elements, relationships, and conditions) by logical generalization. This might be condensed into establishing a testable theory.

The key argument in multiple case studies is that we can explain differences in phenomena by differences in elements, relationships, and conditions in different (categories of) cases. Hence, these differences are important for a comprehensive description and explanation of the cases and potentially for more or all cases.

Results are similarities and differences, grouped into categories of elements, relationships, and conditions from rich and comprehensive case descriptions.

Methods involve mainly categorization and clustering (apart from the methods used in single case studies) and can be qualitative and quantitative.

Data used are varied and from multiple sources that provide information about potential categories, either guided by theory or with no guidance. The data is basically the same as in single case studies, but the search might be more focused by theories or preconceptions about similarities and differences. All data necessary for an envisioned categorization need to be collected.

Research question

The typical research question of a multiple case study is “what are the similarities and differences or different categories of cases that might explain variations in a phenomenon?”.

9.2.2 Issues to Address in Multiple Case Research

In detailing the research design, you face many multiple case research specific problems and decisions. We list the main options you have in the following.

Multiple case as a research design on its own

A multiple case research design shifts the focus from understanding a single case to the differences and similarities between cases. Thus, it is not just conducting another (second, third, etc.) case study. Rather, it is the next step in developing a theory about factors driving differences and similarities. Often case studies result from tackling research gaps left from models with unsatisfying explanatory power. The case study then tries to understand one phenomenon comprehensively, looking for elements that can contribute to explain the case.

The multiple case research design aims at finding and establishing systematics or taxonomies to group and classify these elements. These classifications might be rather tentative, based on the similarities and differences between two cases or already approaching the operationalization of variables that can be used in the next generation of a testable model.

Number of cases

How many cases form a multiple case research design? We suggest anything between two and (a bit arbitrary) roughly 20. It rarely makes sense to examine over twenty cases as your approach sample sizes where applications of testable models become workable. This does not mean that quantitative methods are better. They are just used in distinct steps of gathering knowledge and establishing and refining theories. The number of cases is only limited by the in-depth analysis you can conduct.

In-depth analysis of the cases

Multiple case research is still case research as it tries to understand the cases comprehensively. However, as more empirical evidence emerges about which elements are (more) important for comprehensive understanding, targeting these elements becomes easier and more manageable. The better defined your theory about these elements is, the faster you can draw a comprehensive picture up to the point where you can define variables and proxies to measure them. If there are many unique elements and interrelationships between them, this might call for many cases to increase the likelihood of integrating many combinations. However, if you have a limited number of possible combinations of elements, then another research design (e.g., cross-sectional research) might yield additional arguments than just adding more of the same (e.g., there is no or only limited added value to analyze the 45th organization where a combination of X, Y and Z prevented the successful introduction of U).

Theory about important elements

Based on existing empirical research, you establish a theory about what elements of the unit of analysis or its environment are relevant in the sense that they contribute to the understanding of the system and the system’s behavior. Often you can be guided by the following question: would the system and its behavior be understandable without integrating this element? This theory guides your description of your cases. The more refined the theory is, the more you can focus on obtaining the proper information.

Even in a single case study, your search for information is often driven by an underlying theory about the importance of elements. In the end, it is more a question of focus: the comprehensive description of a case (see single case study) or the establishing of a theory about the important elements for a comprehensive description (multiple case study).

Data analysis methods

Usually, we do not refer to specific methods as they are well known and better described elsewhere, we like to stress the possibility to use “qualitative” and “quantitative” methods in various research methods. In multiple case research analysis, this looks like a spurious claim. In fact, the qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) straddles this chasm (Ragin, 2009 ). Qualitative comparative analysis uses categorical variables and the respective n-tuples to classify units of analysis. The potential combinations are then compared to the actual observations. In a second step, inferential logic or Boolean algebra is used to reduce the number of relationships. So, you can arrive at the minimum set of necessary and sufficient conditions to predict values of a category. This method was specially developed to study samples that are too small for linear regression. Qualitative comparative analysis fits nicely with the purpose of multiple case research designs. We like to use this example as teaser to encourage you to look for appropriate new methods.

9.2.3 Major Fallacies in Conducting Multiple Case Research

While providing guidance and support for research projects, these are the major pitfalls students encounter in their multiple case research projects.

Multiple cases as an excuse to forego in-depth analysis

Many studies use a multiple case study research design to solve insufficient access to a single case. As more cases means not as much in-depth analysis, perhaps even only a single interview. This is a fallacy as this only works if you already know very well what information you need to gain a comprehensive picture. Only conducting ten interviews to “have” ten cases is not enough. First you need to start with a very good guide (based on empirical evidence) about the information you like to get. Second, you need to verify the information, making sure that the information pertains to the case and is not just the opinion of the interviewee.

Jumping the chain with insufficient evidence

The feasibility of conducting successful multiple case research is very much depending on the availability of empirical evidence and the research gap left by this evidence. Jumping from single case research as empirical evidence to multiple case research with about 20 cases rarely works. This is because the single case rarely offers enough evidence to establish a theory about the relevance of elements and their interdependencies. It is usually better to introduce a multiple case research project with perhaps three to eight cases as an intermediate step.

Staggered design versus multiple case research

It is difficult to differentiate between multiple case research and a staggered design comprising (several) single cases followed by a multiple case research design. The (one stage) multiple case research design would limit or prune the data collection and the analysis of the cases to specific categories based on existing theory. The staggered design, on the other hand, uses fully fledged single case research (first stage) as input for categorization and comparison in the multiple case research (second stage). For example, Yin ( 2014 ) states that a multiple case study basically means conducting case studies and a comparison of the cases. In fact, we consider this a staggered design combining different research designs to answer different questions. We first conduct case study research and then we look for the similarities and differences (i.e., the relevant elements that describe the cases sufficiently). Not realizing the staggered design leads to confusion regarding the research question and lacks the required comprehensiveness of the in-depth analysis.

9.3 Writing a Multiple Case Research Paper

Writing a multiple case research paper follows the principles and structure detailed in Chap. 4 . However, there are some aspects especially important for reports about multiple case projects or (partly) different from reports about other research projects. We address these idiosyncrasies following the standard structure of a scientific paper.

Introduction

Introducing a multiple case research means to clarify the focus of the research and its reasoning. Often a multiple case research design acts as a bridge between single case research and cross-sectional (or longitudinal) research. Their initial set-ups or starting points are rather clearly defined. However, regarding the multiple case research, it is important that we delineate which part of the bridge–from where to where–our research design establishes. This is in line with the general purpose of expectation management in the introduction.

In multiple case research, the purpose is usually theory elaboration. What will be elaborated? What is the starting point? This needs to be defined in the introduction. The outline of the preliminary aims affects the expectations for the theoretical background and the literature review.

Theoretical background

Here, you describe the theory that is elaborated in your research project. At one extreme of the theory continuum, there is no theoretical foundation available (apart from some underlying grand theories, see Sect. 2.3.1 ). This goes together with the research aim to identify similarities and preliminary categories.

At the other extreme, there might be a rather well-developed theory lacking only nuances to develop testable hypotheses. Then the research aim is to define constructs and categories and to confirm the construct and instrument validity.

As mentioned, these are the two extremes. So, anything in between is also possible. This makes a detailed guidance on this section impossible, apart from the necessity to check carefully for consistency between the theoretical background and the research objective. Any mismatch here seriously impairs the intellectual contribution.

Literature review

The same holds true for the literature review. The literature review of all multiple case research studies comprises no or only few studies that aim to generalize a theory. And those few usually feature a low power of explanation. Here, you demonstrate that no or only limited studies exist about your research topic.

There is a large continuum across existing case research that corresponds to the state of theory development. If there is little or no theory, we would expect only few case studies in the literature review. If the theory is already more developed, there are likely to be more case studies available that have already started to elaborate the theory by establishing categories for elements, conditions, and relationships.

The third part of the literature review is optional and depends on your experience as a researcher. Talking about constructs and categories, you do not have to reinvent the wheel. There might be other research available that deals with similar issues in another context or refers to other phenomena that help you get ideas, concepts, and instruments for your own research projects.

Typical research gap

The typical research gap of multiple case research follows directly from the issues addressed in the theoretical background and the literature review:

the power of explanation of statistically testable models is too low,

there are no statistically testable models,

there is no or no satisfying theory about the system, elements, and relationships that can be tested or applied to specific types of systems or environments (cases),

there are no case studies, only few case studies, but there has been no theory established what elements are relevant for describing and explaining the system, or

there is only an initial idea (starting point) about a theory, but it is yet unclear about details and operationalization and can thus not yet be tested.

The extent (small to large) of the identified research gap has a tremendous impact on your research aim.

Typical research aims

The typical research aim of a multiple case research design is to contribute to establishing a (refined) theory by classifying and characterizing cases and their relevant elements and relationships.

As already mentioned, the specifics and the extent of the aim depend on the existing theories, research, and the corresponding research gap.

Typical research question

Typical research questions of multiple case research design projects are:

what are the similarities and differences of [cases] about [dimension(s)]?

what are the relevant dimensions for describing [cases] about [problem or situation]?

We can illustrate this further. [Cases] could, for example, mean one of the following.

organizations,

departments of organization,

industries, or

By [dimensions] we mean any kind of criteria or characteristics of the cases, for example:

ownership structure,

management structure,

organization,

products and services,

innovation process, or

degree of outsourcing.

By [problem or situation] we mean any kind of condition that is relevant for the cases, for example:

during a pandemic,

after a financial crisis,

in a recession, or

victim of a cyber-attack.

The difference between [dimension] and [problem / situation] is not clearly cut, which in our opinion is not an obstacle to multiple case research (i.e., you can largely ignore it).

The sample needs to be described. As the focus is on similarities and differences between cases, the selection process needs to be described.

Data collection methods also use an information guideline like the single case research, that needs to be developed and substantiated based on the theory so far. The data collection is basically the same as in single case research but tends to be more standardized to facilitate comparison and the larger sample.

Data analysis methods are split in two parts. One part of the analysis methods deals with the data analysis of each case individually, which again is basically the same as in single case research. Yet, the multiple case specific analysis methods need to be described. Those refer to categorization and comparison, mainly operationalization of the establishing of categories (which categories and how to allocate to a category), and what constitutes being “similar” and “different” in each respect.

As the differentiation of the analysis methods, the results section covers the results of the individual cases, the results of the case comparison, and the case categorization. You present the rich individual case descriptions (probably not as comprehensive as compared to single case research designs) providing a complete picture about the relevant dimensions. The less standardized and more comprehensive the individual case descriptions are, the more important they become.

The results on the level of categorization and comparison should differentiate in three parts:

identifying criteria for the comprehensive description of the units of analysis,

comparing the units of analysis regarding these criteria, and

comparing and clustering the units of analysis.

The relative importance and meaningfulness of the results differ depending on the data collection (obviously, data collected to allow a categorization about certain criteria is less suited to identify additional criteria than, for example, single case research).

With qualitative data, there is already some interpretation involved in the data analysis. You discuss the results in this section.

Here are some issues you must discuss, among others:

can the criteria sufficiently describe the units of analysis?

is the comparison of the units of analysis based on these criteria meaningful (in relation to the comparison of the entire units)? Do we understand differences in the units of analysis as differences in distinct criteria? Are these criteria-related differences sufficient for understanding the differences and the similarities between units of analysis?

can you identify clusters? Can you use distinct criteria for allocating units of analysis to clusters (categories)?

can you elaborate on the existing theory? Has the theory now reached a state where it might be tested? What lacks to arrive at a testable hypothesis?

Referring to the picture of the bridge from “no theory at all to theory confirmation”, how far have you come?

The typical conclusion of a multiple case research is that the units of analysis are similar or different regarding certain elements, conditions, and relationships (summarized as criteria) and that the units of analysis can be grouped into similar and delineated from different clusters of cases, using certain criteria.

An additional conclusion may be the elaboration of an existing theory with the addition, elimination or differentiation of certain elements, conditions and relationships and preparing theory testing by identifying testable hypotheses.

9.4 Related Research Designs

In this section, we briefly describe or cross-reference research designs that are similar to the multiple case research design. They might partially overlap with or considered to be adjacent to multiple case research or in fact be a multiple case research design that has its own label in the literature. If the multiple case research design does not fully meet your intentions and expectations, look here for direction where to continue your search.

Single case research

Single-case research (see Chap. 8 ) draws on a comprehensive holistic picture of a phenomenon. The purpose is to understand “how” and “why” the unit of analysis behaves and acts in real life. This does not require an underlying theory (but it also does not preclude its existence). So, if there is no preconception about categories that denote similarities and differences, focus on one unit of analysis to understand the relevant elements, conditions, and relationships better. These results can-at a later stage (in a staggered design)-be used to compare these elements with those derived from other units of analysis.

Cross-sectional field study

A cross-sectional field study (CSFS) is a type of multiple case research and is within the peculiarities and issues of multiple case research designs. Cross-sectional field studies were introduced by Lillis and Mundy ( 2005 ) and intended to bridge the gaps between qualitative and quantitative research. We deem it worthwhile to present it in a bit more detail.

The major characteristics and properties of cross-sectional field study are:

it uses a larger sample than (multiple) case studies with less in-depth data, usually retrieved by relatively shorter interviews,

it is better suited to deal with case typical “how” and “why”-questions than surveys (used in cross-sectional research) (Eisenhardt 1991),

it can provide a better understanding of “complex phenomena” than surveys (used in cross-sectional research), and

it may help to discover ambiguities or the need for additional differentiation or categorization in prior research.

In short, it addresses the missing dialogue between “pure” case studies and cross-sectional (survey based quantitative) research. In line with our argumentation for the intellectual contribution of multiple case research, a cross-sectional field study tries to bridge case studies’ problems of generalizability with the insufficient explanatory power of cross-sectional research (high degree of unexplained variation of the dependent variable). The relation of these three designs can be depicted in Fig. 9.1 .

Main differences between case study, cross-sectional field study (CSFS) and cross-sectional study (Lillis & Mundy, 2005 )

A cross-sectional field study attempts a compromise by combining somewhat “in-depth” analysis with somewhat “large” samples of around 12 - 40 to identify categories and patterns. Cross-sectional field study allocates this sample size well beyond the sample sizes of multiple case studies and distinguishes between the two, which we, the authors of this textbook, do not (see Fig. 9.2 ).

Classification of research designs based on depth and sample size (Lillis & Mundy, 2005 )

Arguing with Keating’s ( 1995 ) critique that theory elaboration (refinement) is neglected in literature, a cross-sectional field study aims to address especially this type of intellectual contribution. Based on existing, but not yet testable theory, the topic should be researched in more depth and the theory should be refined to allow for future theory testing (Ferreira & Merchant, 1992 ). This again is in line with our understanding of the purpose of multiple case research.

Table 9.1 summarizes the suitability and the methods used in cross-sectional field study and clarifies each criterion with examples.

Cross-sectional research

Cross-sectional research (see Chap. 10 ) focuses on generalizable observations at one point in time. If the number of potentially relevant variables is sufficiently low, the variables rather well defined (because of existing theories or studies), and the number of data sets rather large, you might consider a cross-sectional research.

Key Aspects to Remember

Understand the advantages and disadvantages of multiple case designs

A major advantage of multiple case research over individual case studies is that researchers can compare their findings. A systematic comparison by the means of a cross-case analysis reveals similarities and differences and how they affect findings. Thus, the results of multiple case studies are more convincing, trustworthy, and robust. Yet, the disadvantage compared to single case studies is that they tie up more resources and are more costly.

Do not confuse interviews with cases

Many studies use a multiple case research design to solve insufficient access to a single case. Because of more cases they analyze each one not in as much depth, and perhaps even conduct only a single interview. This is a fallacy as this only works if you already know very well what information you need for a rather comprehensive picture. So just conducting ten interviews to “have” ten cases is not enough. First you need to start with a very good guide (based on empirical evidence) about the information you would like to get and secondly you need to verify the information, making sure that the information pertains to the case and is not just the opinion of the interviewee.

Differentiate between holistic and embedded cases

In multiple case research designs, each case must be selected so that it predicts similar results (literal replication) or predicts contrasting results, but for expected reasons (theoretical replication). If multiple cases lead to contradictory results, the preliminary theory must be revised and tested with other cases. Both single and multiple designs can be holistic (one unit of analysis per case) or embedded (multiple units of analysis per case).

Understand the intellectual contribution of multiple case research designs

Critical Thinking Questions

Is there an ideal number of cases in multiple case research designs?

Why is an interview with a company representative not a case?

What major challenges do you face when applying multiple case research design?

Why is this research design sometimes used as an excuse to forego in-depth analysis?

How does a multiple research design produce intellectual contributions?

Recommendations for further Readings

If you are still unsure whether multiple case research design is suitable for your research project, you might find the following literature and readings helpful.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Günes, E., & Bahçivan, E. (2016). A multiple case study of preservice science teachers’ TPACK: Embedded in a comprehensive belief system. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(15), 8040–8054.

Keating, P. J. (1995). A framework for classifying and evaluating the theoretical contributions of case research in management accounting. In Journal of management accounting research 7, p. 66–86.

Lillis, A. M. & Mundy, J. (2005). Cross-Sectional Field Studies in Management Accounting Research—Closing the Gaps between Surveys and Case Studies. In Journal of management accounting research 17 (1), pp. 119–141.

Ridder, H-G. (2017). The theory contribution of case study research designs. In Bus Res 10 (2), pp. 281–305.

Williams, J. J. & Seaman, Alfred E. (2002). Management accounting systems change and departmental performance: the influence of managerial information and task uncertainty. In Management Accounting Research 13 (4), pp. 419–445.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research. Design and methods. 5. edition. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington, DC: SAGE.

Bruns, W. J., & McKinnon, S. M. (1993). Information and managers: A field study. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 5 , 84–108.

Google Scholar  

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1), 25–32.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ferreira, L. D. & Merchant, K. A. (1992). Field research in management accounting and control: A review and evaluation . Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Keating, P. J. (1995). A framework for classifying and evaluating the theoretical contributions of case research in management accounting. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 7 , 66–86.

Lillis, A. M., & Mundy, J. (2005). Cross-sectional field studies in management accounting research—closing the gaps between surveys and case studies. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 17 (1), 119–141.

Ragin, C. C. (2009). Reflections on casing and case-oriented research (pp. 522–534). The Sage handbook of case-based method.

Ridder, H.-G. (2017). The theory contribution of case study research designs. Business Research, 10 (2), 281–305.

Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466).

Vaughan, D. (1992). Theory elaboration: The heuristics of case analysis. What is a case?. In C.C. Ragin & H.S. Becker (Eds.), Exploring the foundations of social inquiry (pp. 173–202). Cambridge University Press.

Walsham, G. (2006). Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems, 15 (3), 320–330.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research. Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Wirtschaft/IFZ – Campus Zug-Rotkreuz, Hochschule Luzern, Zug-Rotkreuz, Zug , Switzerland

Stefan Hunziker & Michael Blankenagel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Hunziker .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Hunziker, S., Blankenagel, M. (2021). Multiple Case Research Design. In: Research Design in Business and Management. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34357-6_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34357-6_9

Published : 10 November 2021

Publisher Name : Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

Print ISBN : 978-3-658-34356-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-658-34357-6

eBook Packages : Business and Economics (German Language)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Case Study vs. Descriptive Approach to Research

What's the difference.

The case study approach and the descriptive approach are two different methods used in research. The case study approach involves in-depth analysis of a specific individual, group, or situation. It aims to provide a detailed understanding of the subject matter by examining various aspects and collecting qualitative data. On the other hand, the descriptive approach focuses on describing and summarizing a larger population or phenomenon. It involves collecting quantitative data through surveys, observations, or experiments to draw general conclusions. While the case study approach provides rich and detailed information, it is limited in terms of generalizability. In contrast, the descriptive approach allows for broader generalizations but may lack the depth and context provided by case studies. Ultimately, the choice between these approaches depends on the research objectives and the nature of the research question.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Research is a fundamental aspect of any scientific inquiry, aiming to gather information and gain insights into various phenomena. When conducting research, researchers employ different approaches and methodologies to achieve their objectives. Two commonly used approaches are the case study and descriptive approach. While both approaches have their unique attributes, they differ in terms of their focus, data collection methods, and generalizability.

Case Study Approach

The case study approach is a qualitative research method that focuses on in-depth analysis of a specific individual, group, or event. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the subject under investigation by examining its context, history, and unique characteristics. Case studies often involve multiple sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and document analysis, to gather rich and detailed information.

One of the key attributes of the case study approach is its ability to explore complex and unique phenomena that may not be easily captured by other research methods. By delving deep into a specific case, researchers can uncover intricate details and gain a holistic understanding of the subject. This approach is particularly useful when studying rare or exceptional cases, as it allows researchers to examine the intricacies and nuances that may not be apparent in larger-scale studies.

Furthermore, the case study approach enables researchers to generate new hypotheses and theories by closely examining the relationships and patterns within the case. It provides an opportunity for researchers to explore and develop new ideas, which can contribute to the advancement of knowledge in a particular field. Additionally, case studies often involve a longitudinal design, allowing researchers to track changes and developments over time.

However, it is important to note that the case study approach has limitations. Due to its focus on a specific case, the findings may not be easily generalizable to a larger population. The small sample size and unique characteristics of the case may limit the external validity of the findings. Therefore, caution should be exercised when applying the results of a case study to broader contexts.

Descriptive Approach

The descriptive approach, also known as the survey method, aims to describe and analyze the characteristics, behaviors, and opinions of a specific population or sample. It involves collecting data through questionnaires, interviews, or observations, and analyzing the responses to draw conclusions about the population under study. The descriptive approach provides a snapshot of the current state of affairs and allows researchers to identify patterns and trends.

One of the key attributes of the descriptive approach is its ability to provide a broad overview of a population or phenomenon. By collecting data from a large sample, researchers can make generalizations about the population and draw conclusions that are applicable to a wider context. This approach is particularly useful when studying large populations or when the research objective is to describe the prevalence of certain characteristics or behaviors.

Moreover, the descriptive approach allows researchers to quantify data and analyze it statistically. By using statistical techniques, researchers can identify relationships between variables, test hypotheses, and make predictions. This quantitative aspect of the descriptive approach provides a level of objectivity and allows for comparisons across different groups or populations.

However, the descriptive approach also has limitations. It may not capture the complexity and richness of individual cases or unique phenomena. The focus on generalizability may overlook important contextual factors that influence the research topic. Additionally, the reliance on self-report measures in surveys may introduce biases and inaccuracies in the data collected.

While the case study and descriptive approaches differ in their focus and data collection methods, they both contribute to the field of research in their own ways. The case study approach provides in-depth insights into specific cases, allowing researchers to explore complex phenomena and generate new hypotheses. On the other hand, the descriptive approach provides a broader overview of populations, enabling researchers to make generalizations and identify patterns.

Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, and the choice between them depends on the research objectives and the nature of the phenomenon under investigation. Researchers should carefully consider the specific research question, the available resources, and the desired level of generalizability when selecting the appropriate approach.

In conclusion, the case study and descriptive approaches are two distinct research methodologies that offer different perspectives and insights. The case study approach allows for in-depth analysis of specific cases, providing rich and detailed information. On the other hand, the descriptive approach provides a broader overview of populations, allowing for generalizations and statistical analysis. Both approaches have their merits and limitations, and researchers should choose the most appropriate approach based on their research objectives and the nature of the phenomenon under investigation.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

InformedHealth.org [Internet]. Cologne, Germany: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG); 2006-.

InformedHealth.org [Internet].

In brief: what types of studies are there.

Last Update: September 8, 2016 ; Next update: 2024.

There are various types of scientific studies such as experiments and comparative analyses, observational studies, surveys, or interviews. The choice of study type will mainly depend on the research question being asked.

When making decisions, patients and doctors need reliable answers to a number of questions. Depending on the medical condition and patient's personal situation, the following questions may be asked:

• What is the cause of the condition?
• What is the natural course of the disease if left untreated?
• What will change because of the treatment?
• How many other people have the same condition?
• How do other people cope with it?

Each of these questions can best be answered by a different type of study.

In order to get reliable results, a study has to be carefully planned right from the start. One thing that is especially important to consider is which type of study is best suited to the research question. A study protocol should be written and complete documentation of the study's process should also be done. This is vital in order for other scientists to be able to reproduce and check the results afterwards.

The main types of studies are randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, case-control studies and qualitative studies.

• Randomized controlled trials

If you want to know how effective a treatment or diagnostic test is, randomized trials provide the most reliable answers. Because the effect of the treatment is often compared with "no treatment" (or a different treatment), they can also show what happens if you opt to not have the treatment or diagnostic test.

When planning this type of study, a research question is stipulated first. This involves deciding what exactly should be tested and in what group of people. In order to be able to reliably assess how effective the treatment is, the following things also need to be determined before the study is started:

• How long the study should last
• How many participants are needed
• How the effect of the treatment should be measured

For instance, a medication used to treat menopause symptoms needs to be tested on a different group of people than a flu medicine. And a study on treatment for a stuffy nose may be much shorter than a study on a drug taken to prevent strokes .

“Randomized” means divided into groups by chance. In RCTs participants are randomly assigned to one of two or more groups. Then one group receives the new drug A, for example, while the other group receives the conventional drug B or a placebo (dummy drug). Things like the appearance and taste of the drug and the placebo should be as similar as possible. Ideally, the assignment to the various groups is done "double blinded," meaning that neither the participants nor their doctors know who is in which group.

The assignment to groups has to be random in order to make sure that only the effects of the medications are compared, and no other factors influence the results. If doctors decided themselves which patients should receive which treatment, they might – for instance – give the more promising drug to patients who have better chances of recovery. This would distort the results. Random allocation ensures that differences between the results of the two groups at the end of the study are actually due to the treatment and not something else.

Randomized controlled trials provide the best results when trying to find out if there is a cause-and-effect relationship. RCTs can answer questions such as these:

• Is the new drug A better than the standard treatment for medical condition X?
• Does regular physical activity speed up recovery after a slipped disk when compared to passive waiting?
• Cohort studies

A cohort is a group of people who are observed frequently over a period of many years – for instance, to determine how often a certain disease occurs. In a cohort study, two (or more) groups that are exposed to different things are compared with each other: For example, one group might smoke while the other doesn't. Or one group may be exposed to a hazardous substance at work, while the comparison group isn't. The researchers then observe how the health of the people in both groups develops over the course of several years, whether they become ill, and how many of them pass away. Cohort studies often include people who are healthy at the start of the study. Cohort studies can have a prospective (forward-looking) design or a retrospective (backward-looking) design. In a prospective study, the result that the researchers are interested in (such as a specific illness) has not yet occurred by the time the study starts. But the outcomes that they want to measure and other possible influential factors can be precisely defined beforehand. In a retrospective study, the result (the illness) has already occurred before the study starts, and the researchers look at the patient's history to find risk factors.

Cohort studies are especially useful if you want to find out how common a medical condition is and which factors increase the risk of developing it. They can answer questions such as:

• How does high blood pressure affect heart health?
• Does smoking increase your risk of lung cancer?

For example, one famous long-term cohort study observed a group of 40,000 British doctors, many of whom smoked. It tracked how many doctors died over the years, and what they died of. The study showed that smoking caused a lot of deaths, and that people who smoked more were more likely to get ill and die.

• Case-control studies

Case-control studies compare people who have a certain medical condition with people who do not have the medical condition, but who are otherwise as similar as possible, for example in terms of their sex and age. Then the two groups are interviewed, or their medical files are analyzed, to find anything that might be risk factors for the disease. So case-control studies are generally retrospective.

Case-control studies are one way to gain knowledge about rare diseases. They are also not as expensive or time-consuming as RCTs or cohort studies. But it is often difficult to tell which people are the most similar to each other and should therefore be compared with each other. Because the researchers usually ask about past events, they are dependent on the participants’ memories. But the people they interview might no longer remember whether they were, for instance, exposed to certain risk factors in the past.

Still, case-control studies can help to investigate the causes of a specific disease, and answer questions like these:

• Do HPV infections increase the risk of cervical cancer ?
• Is the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (“cot death”) increased by parents smoking at home?

Cohort studies and case-control studies are types of "observational studies."

• Cross-sectional studies

Many people will be familiar with this kind of study. The classic type of cross-sectional study is the survey: A representative group of people – usually a random sample – are interviewed or examined in order to find out their opinions or facts. Because this data is collected only once, cross-sectional studies are relatively quick and inexpensive. They can provide information on things like the prevalence of a particular disease (how common it is). But they can't tell us anything about the cause of a disease or what the best treatment might be.

Cross-sectional studies can answer questions such as these:

• How tall are German men and women at age 20?
• How many people have cancer screening?
• Qualitative studies

This type of study helps us understand, for instance, what it is like for people to live with a certain disease. Unlike other kinds of research, qualitative research does not rely on numbers and data. Instead, it is based on information collected by talking to people who have a particular medical condition and people close to them. Written documents and observations are used too. The information that is obtained is then analyzed and interpreted using a number of methods.

Qualitative studies can answer questions such as these:

• How do women experience a Cesarean section?
• What aspects of treatment are especially important to men who have prostate cancer ?
• How reliable are the different types of studies?

Each type of study has its advantages and disadvantages. It is always important to find out the following: Did the researchers select a study type that will actually allow them to find the answers they are looking for? You can’t use a survey to find out what is causing a particular disease, for instance.

It is really only possible to draw reliable conclusions about cause and effect by using randomized controlled trials. Other types of studies usually only allow us to establish correlations (relationships where it isn’t clear whether one thing is causing the other). For instance, data from a cohort study may show that people who eat more red meat develop bowel cancer more often than people who don't. This might suggest that eating red meat can increase your risk of getting bowel cancer. But people who eat a lot of red meat might also smoke more, drink more alcohol, or tend to be overweight. The influence of these and other possible risk factors can only be determined by comparing two equal-sized groups made up of randomly assigned participants.

That is why randomized controlled trials are usually the only suitable way to find out how effective a treatment is. Systematic reviews, which summarize multiple RCTs , are even better. In order to be good-quality, though, all studies and systematic reviews need to be designed properly and eliminate as many potential sources of error as possible.

• German Network for Evidence-based Medicine. Glossar: Qualitative Forschung.  Berlin: DNEbM; 2011. 
• Greenhalgh T. Einführung in die Evidence-based Medicine: kritische Beurteilung klinischer Studien als Basis einer rationalen Medizin. Bern: Huber; 2003. 
• Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG, Germany). General methods . Version 5.0. Cologne: IQWiG; 2017.
• Klug SJ, Bender R, Blettner M, Lange S. Wichtige epidemiologische Studientypen. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2007; 132:e45-e47. [ PubMed : 17530597 ]
• Schäfer T. Kritische Bewertung von Studien zur Ätiologie. In: Kunz R, Ollenschläger G, Raspe H, Jonitz G, Donner-Banzhoff N (eds.). Lehrbuch evidenzbasierte Medizin in Klinik und Praxis. Cologne: Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag; 2007.

IQWiG health information is written with the aim of helping people understand the advantages and disadvantages of the main treatment options and health care services.

Because IQWiG is a German institute, some of the information provided here is specific to the German health care system. The suitability of any of the described options in an individual case can be determined by talking to a doctor. informedhealth.org can provide support for talks with doctors and other medical professionals, but cannot replace them. We do not offer individual consultations.

Our information is based on the results of good-quality studies. It is written by a team of health care professionals, scientists and editors, and reviewed by external experts. You can find a detailed description of how our health information is produced and updated in our methods.

• Cite this Page InformedHealth.org [Internet]. Cologne, Germany: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG); 2006-. In brief: What types of studies are there? [Updated 2016 Sep 8].

In this Page

Informed health links, related information.

• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

• In brief: What types of studies are there? - InformedHealth.org In brief: What types of studies are there? - InformedHealth.org

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Home » Education » Difference Between Case Study and Phenomenology

Difference Between Case Study and Phenomenology

Main difference – case study vs phenomenology.

Case study and phenomenology are two terms that are often used in the field of social science s and research. Both these terms refer to types of research methods ; however, phenomenology is also a concept in philosophical studies. As a research methodology, the main difference between case study and phenomenology is that case study is an in-depth and detailed investigation of the development of a single event, situation, or an individual over a period of time whereas phenomenology is a study that is designed to understand the subjective, lived experiences and perspectives of participants.

In this article, we will be discussing,

     1. What is a Case Study           – Definition, Use, Data Collection, Limitations      2. What is Phenomenology           – Definition, Use, Data Collection, Limitations      3. What is the difference between Case Study and Phenomenology

What is a Case Study

A case study is defined as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used” (Yin,1984).  In simple terms, it is an in-depth and detailed investigation of the development of a single event, situation, or an individual over a period of time. Case studies are often used to explore and unearth complex issues such as social issues, medical conditions, etc. Many researchers use case study method to explore social issues like prostitution, drug addiction, unemployment, and poverty. Case studies can be qualitative and/or quantitative in nature.

A case study commences with identifying and defining the research problem; then the researcher has to select the cases and decide techniques for data collection and analysis. This is followed by collecting data in the field and evaluating and analyzing the data. The final step in a case study involves preparing the research report.  Data collection methods in a case study involve observations, questionnaires, interviews, analysis of recorded data, etc. A successful case study is always context-sensitive, holistic, systematic, layered and comprehensive.

Case studies are sometimes classified into three categories known as exploratory, descriptive and explanatory case studies. Ethnographies are also considered as a type of case studies.

Although case studies offer detailed and in-depth information about a particular phenomenon, it is difficult to use this information to form generalization since they only focus on a single phenomenon.

Figure 1: Questionnaires can be used to collect data for case studies.

What is Phenomenology

Phenomenology is both a philosophy and a research method. As a philosophical study, phenomenology refers to the study of the structures of experience and consciousness. In the field of research, it refers to a study that is designed to understand the subjective, lived experiences and perspectives of participants. Phenomenology is based on the principle that a single experience can be interpreted in multiple ways and that reality consists of each participant’s interpretation of the said experience. Thus, phenomenology provides information about unique individual experiences, offering a rich and complete description of human experiences and meanings.

Data is collected in phenomenology through long and intensive, semi-structured or unstructured personal interviews. The researcher may also have to conduct several interview sessions with each participant since phenomenology relies heavily on interviews. However, the information gathered through these interviews may also depend on the interviewing skills of the researcher and the articulate skills of the participants. This is a limitation of this method.

Figure 2: Phenomenology often involves long personal interviews.

Case Study: Case study is an in-depth and detailed investigation of the development of a single event, situation, or an individual over a period of time.

Phenomenology: Phenomenology is a study that is designed to understand the subjective, lived experiences and perspectives of participants.

Data Collection

Case Study: Data collection methods include observations, interviews, questionnaires, etc.

Phenomenology: Interviews are the main method of data collection.

Case Study: Case studies focus on a single incident, event, organization, or an individual.

Phenomenology: Phenomenology focus on various individuals and their experiences.

Limitations

Case Study: The information obtained from a case study cannot be used to make generalizations.

Phenomenology: Information relies heavily on the interviewing skills of the researcher and the articulate skills of the participants.

Reference: 1. Yin, Robert. “Case study research. Beverly Hills.” (1984).

Image Courtesy: 1. “5 Candidates reading a questionnaire Photo Tony Ntumba MONUSCO” by MONUSCO Photos (CC BY-SA 2.0) via Flickr 2. “1702648” (Public Domain) via Pixabay

About the Author: Hasa

Hasanthi is a seasoned content writer and editor with over 8 years of experience. Armed with a BA degree in English and a knack for digital marketing, she explores her passions for literature, history, culture, and food through her engaging and informative writing.

​You May Also Like These

Leave a reply cancel reply.