Seven of the other eight definitions stress other aspects of case study which most of its proponents would agree with. Thus, Bassey, Verschuren, Dul and Hak and Swanborn all emphasise that the case is to be studied in its ‘natural’ or ‘real life’ context. Cases are not artificial entities, they are not experiments, but are part of our reality, from which – even though, as cases, they are bounded – they cannot be separated.
Both Verschuren and Thomas point out that case study is a holistic research strategy. We study (or, at least, attempt to study) the entirety of the case, not selected aspects of it. In practice, this may mean that we study as much of the case as we can in a given period of time. Gillham, Dul and Hak and Swanborn stress that case study need not be confined to single cases, but might involve the comparative study of two or more cases.
Some of the elements of the different definitions could, however, be said to fall into the categories of desirable or idealistic. Bassey writes of case studies focusing on ‘interesting aspects’ and ‘significant features’, leading to the construction of a ‘worthwhile argument’, all of which is definitely a desirable quality, and most probably sought for at the outset of the case study, but not necessarily guaranteed. What is interesting or significant for one researcher may not be so for another, though all would hope and aim for their arguments to be worthwhile.
Gerring states that the aim of case study is ‘to generalize’, which might not always be feasible, and indeed would be rejected as an aim by some case study researchers. The case might be of interest for its own sake, or might be too particular, or the researcher might be unsure about whether their findings were generalisable. The issue of generalisability is a key one in discussions of case study, and we will return to it in more detail in Chapter 3.
Verschuren’s argument that case studies should be observed in ‘an open-ended way’ might also be questioned in terms of its practicality. Most researchers do not have indefinite time to devote to a piece of research, and, after all, one of the main attractions of case study research is that it is small-scale and focused. In Verschuren’s definition, it is also by no means clear what is signified by ‘an iterative-parallel way of proceeding’, which seems to introduce unnecessarily complicated jargon to what is meant to be a straightforward definition.
Other elements of some of the definitions are more particular, and might be debated or disagreed with. Thus, when Dul and Hak specify that case studies are to be analysed ‘in a qualitative manner’, they are revealing both their own preference and the most common strategy (although their preference seems to be immediately compromised by their reference to ‘scores’). It is also possible to analyse case studies, either wholly or partly, in a quantitative manner; though, as we shall see, Dul and Hak are not alone in their view.
Something similar is going on when Swanborn unnecessarily restricts case study to the study of ‘social phenomenon’ which is presumably his focus and interest. Other kinds of natural phenomena (e.g. the dissemination of diseases, weather patterns, the hunting strategies of particular animals) might also lend themselves to a case study approach.
Perhaps the most unusual of the eleven definitions offered is that of VanWynsberghe and Khan, who describe case study as a ‘transparadigmatic and transdisciplinary heuristic’, or, in other words, a way of researching that can be applied in almost any circumstance. That seems rather an obscure way of setting out a definition. While the second part, ‘the careful delineation of the phenomena for which evidence is being collected’, seems more straightforward, it could be applied equally well to many research designs.
Of course, when we are discussing anything of significance, which case study certainly is, there are bound to be differences of opinion and variations in understanding. This is how academics and researchers work to advance and develop our thinking. So it is not surprising that we can readily identify differences and disagreements between these definitions (and there are many others that could have been used). But the commonalities between them are stronger, and, as well as clarifying what case study is, they also help to make it clear what case study is not.
We can be reasonably confident, then, in stating that case study involves the following:
The study of a particular case, or a number of cases.
That the case will be complex and bounded.
That it will be studied in its context.
That the analysis undertaken will seek to be holistic.
Case study is not, as we have already noted, an experiment (though it might be combined with an experimental research design: see Chapter 6). Nor is it a survey or a large-scale analysis. Case study is small-scale research with meaning (this interpretation is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4).
The Origins and History of Case Study
The history of case study is a long and complicated matter: only a brief overview will be given here.
The development of case study as a research design both encompasses and illustrates the issues and critiques (these are discussed at greater length in Chapter 3) which it has had to deal with throughout its history. It also further demonstrates the diversity of usage to which the term case study (and analogous terms) has been put, and its application in a wide variety of disciplines (the subject of the next section and of Chapter 5).
Burgess (1927) offers an account of the early application of case study in American sociology. He notes that ‘The case-study method was first introduced into social science as a handmaiden to statistics’ (p. 114), with the latter long regarded – as it still is in many quarters today – as the most desirable way of undertaking research. In other words, case study was seen largely as a means for fleshing out and providing detailed illustration or exemplification to complement quantitative analyses, rather than as an alternative to them.
Burgess considered that ‘the actual introduction of the case-study as a method of sociological field research was made by Thomas and Znaniecki in The Polish Peasant in Europe and America’ (p. 116), which was first published in 1918 (see also Adelman 2015). This places case study (at least in its sociological context) as being about a century old. Unsurprisingly, then, Burgess, writing when case study was less than a decade old, concludes that ‘it is apparent that case-study as a method in sociology is still in its infancy’ (p. 117). Others, however, date the origin of case study research as rather earlier, with Scholz and Tietje (2002, p. 4) referencing the work of the French sociologist Le Play in 1855, adding more than half a century to Burgess’s reckoning.
Writing nearly 20 years after Burgess, Symonds (1945) reports on what was then recent work on the use of case study, in particular with respect to personality research. It is apparent from his argument and conclusion how important, despite the greater development and acceptance of the method, statistics and ‘objectivity’ remained:
[M]uch remains to be done to improve its methodology so that case materials may be amassed and treated in a manner that includes, on the one hand, objective appraisal and statistical integrity and that, on the other hand, never loses sight of the integrated, dynamic, holistic picture of human personality which the case study approach to research uniquely may give. (p. 357)