1.1 Introduction
The main aim of the chapter is to discuss the case study method. We shall begin by confronting its definition. It is quite a challenge, as researchers representing various paradigms embark on this type of research project. These paradigms define the way we perceive the explored reality, our chances of understanding/cognizing it, and the acceptable research methods. As a consequence, not only is the case study subject to various definitions, but it is also employed to achieve manifold goals (Hassard and Kelemen 2010). Despite these differences, we can point out a number of characteristics that distinguish case study method; they shall be the focus of our discussion. As much as possible, we shall take into account the variety of perspectives in case study-based research, or recommend to readers the sources where they can find more detailed information on a particular issue. In this chapter, the presentation of premises and types of case studies will be followed by a manual, guiding readers in their endeavor to design their own research using the method discussed. For greater clarity, the manual is organized into sections, each providing answers to the following questions:
- Step one: What do we want to find out?
- Step two: Where shall we look for data sources?
- Step three: How is data collected and selected?
- Step four: How should empirical data be analyzed?
- Step five: How are research conclusions formulated and how should we approach writing a research report?
Each of these steps is illustrated by an example from case study-based research in business and management.
1.2 Specific Character of the Case Study as Compared to Other Research Methods
The case study strategy 1 requires an in-depth and comprehensive analysis of a case within its context. A group, an individual, an organization, a processes, or social relationships can all be considered “cases” and, as such, be subject to research. It is advisable to begin by imagining the case as an example of a social or a theoretical phenomenon. A detailed description, together with a thorough analysis, should contribute to understanding the case and formulating several theoretical conclusions.
When emphasizing the comprehensive approach to analysis, some authors go as far as claiming that it is not owing to methodological reasons that researchers have recourse to the case study method, but rather because of their interest in a particular case and the desire to thoroughly examine and comprehend it (Stake 2005). The method allowing them to attain this goal is secondary. Therefore, the selection of techniques and sources is purely pragmatic. The defining feature of the case study strategy is, therefore, a wide range of research techniques combined with various types of data used (Creswell 2007; Gerring 2007; Stake 2005; Yin 2003a).
This variety of tools and data types can hardly be considered typical of the case study strategy, as nearly all qualitative studies combine different techniques, such as interviews, observations, content analysis, and various sources, that is, individuals (both as interviewees and as objects of observation), documents, films, and photographs. The same is true for research questions regarded as typical of case studies, that is, why and how a particular thing happens (Yin 2003b). We ask them when we are interested in processes, interactions, and dynamics (Miles and Huberman 1994; Hijmans and Wester 2010) rather than in “snapshots of social life” (Kostera 2008). Undoubtedly, taking the former (i.e. processes, interactions, and dynamics) into account is one of the advantages of case study, although yet again, it is not uncommon for qualitative methods. Another feature that is characteristic but not specific of the case study is the observation of events in their natural environment and context (Gerring 2007; Yin 2003b; Hijmans and Wester 2010).
Given how difficult it is to discern the features that distinguish the case study from other qualitative approaches, the task is sometimes referred to as the “definitional morass” (Gerring 2007, p. 17). We shall, nevertheless, attempt to identify such characteristic features.
It seems that the difference that defines the case study can be grasped through reference to the aim set by researchers who adopt other approaches to research. For it is the aim that dictates which techniques and data sources should be used and where to put emphasis in the research process . In the ethnographic method, emphasis is on the reconstruction of the cultural context within which the examined group functions; all tool design and data collection procedures are subordinated to this aim. The grounded theory method seeks to create a theory that “fits” the observed reality. In the case study method, the primary aim is a comprehensive description and understanding of the case and of its context. Then, depending on the researcher’s paradigmatic affiliations, the following alternative options are possible:
- using the obtained results to create abstract (theoretical) general concepts that can be used to describe and explain the examined phenomenon (Stake 2005; Creswell 2007);
- developing theories that expound social reality within a delimited area (Mills et al. 2010; Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007);
- modifying or supplementing existing theories (Burawoy 1998; Mills et al. 2010; Wadham and Warren 2014; Yin 2003a);
- referring to a wider class of similar phenomena (Seawright and Gerring 2008; Stake 2005);
- providing practical solutions to specific types of problems, for example, organizational issues or problems with the evaluation of various social interventions (Hassard and Kelemen 2010).
Another distinguishing feature of the case study method is the way in which units of analysis are treated. The case and its context are often described as a system or a bounded phenomenon (Stake 2005; Creswell 2007; Gerring 2004), which is to emphasize that the investigated unit of analysis (organization, person, process) is defined together with its numerous aspects and within a broad network of social, political, institutional, ethical, and aesthetic phenomena and meanings (Creswell 2007; Mills et al. 2010; Stake 2005).
By now, it should be clear how difficult it is to formulate an adequate definition of the case study research method. Let us quote the definition suggested by John W. Creswell, as it appears to comprise all important elements mentioned thus far, yet remains general enough not to exclude the numerous variants of relationships between theory and research that are typical of the method in question. Creswell (2007, p. 73) defines the case study as:
a qualitative approach in which the investigator explores a bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time , through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information (e.g., observations, interviews, audiovisual material, and documents and reports), and reports a case description and case-based themes.
Nothing should prevent an investigator from having recourse to quantitative techniques in the case study methodology if it is deemed justified and advantageous for the research question (Creswell 2007; Mills et al. 2010). It is important, however, to ensure consistency with the adopted theoretical (and methodological) approach and to properly select research patterns. As mentioned above, the case study method is, after all, described and applied by representatives of various paradigmatic traditions.
1.3 Premises of the Case Study Strategy
Despite divergences in understanding the case study method, a number of basic traits distinguish it from other methods. They relate to several key issues, such as the understanding of the concept of “case”, priority attributed to the description of a single case, the importance of theory and generalization, the way in which reality is understood and expounded. The above are approached in various manners, depending on the research tradition within which the case study is defined. We shall now attempt to illustrate and explain this diversity.
Case as a “System”
As mentioned above, by applying the case study method, we choose to understand the case as a system within its broadly defined contextual framework, which often poses the problem of case boundaries. If we study an organization in the context of its relationships with the cultural, social, and institutional environment, we may wonder where the organization ends and its surroundings start. As researchers, however, we are obliged to trace case boundaries at an early stage of the research project. This implies the need to make fundamental decisions about the object of our research endeavors. We should specify the timeframe and the extent of the phenomena we intend to research within the case.
Focus on the Specific Character of a Given Case
Case study method is founded on the principle that each case should be regarded as a complete and unique phenomenon if we are to understand its internal dynamics. Regardless of the number of cases analyzed, any study based on this method requires a thorough knowledge of each case (Stake 2005). This has implications for analytical procedures: if we examine several cases, we need to prepare a sep...