Thus, Foreman (1948) sought to develop a theory of case studies. He argued that case studies use three sorts of data – personal documents, participant observation and third-person reports (a rather partial listing to the modern eye) – and that they may be used in five ways in sociological research: ‘They may serve purposes of: (1) illustration; (2) concept and hypothesis development; (3) hypothesis testing; (4) prediction or postdiction; (5) methodological testing or refinement’ (p. 410). He goes on to consider the adequacy of case records and their interpretation, how this may be judged, and the thorny issue of generalisation.
In the 1950s, however, case study became less popular for a period in the social sciences. As Platt (1992) notes, in her analysis of the history of case study in American methodological thought:
The term ‘case study’ has played a variety of roles, changing over time, in American methodological discussion… Its use has often been imprecise, carrying ideological connotations rather than analytical denonation. (p. 17)
She associates the post-war decline in the popularity of case study with a variety of other factors as well, including continuing concern with the issues of generalisation and prediction, problems with the articulation of case study analysis, and increased competition from the development of more sophisticated quantitative techniques and associated databases (an area in which American social science led the world).
Case study research began to make a comeback in the late 1960s and 1970s (Simons 1980, 2009), as qualitative techniques assumed a greater importance and popularity, particularly outside North America:
In the last 25 years the shift away from quantification and large scale survey methods in the social sciences, alongside the increasing attention being given to language and meaning in constructing identity and social relations, has seen a significant revival in case study methods. This has led to a range of reappraisals of the method, and an increased emphasis upon lived experience, the life-story and the biographical/autobiographical in social research. (David 2006, p. xxxix)
The increased development and diversification of qualitative methods (e.g. Denzin and Lincoln 2005a) both helped to build up the contemporary popularity of case study as a research design and led to its mistaken identification in some quarters as solely a qualitative approach. Its scale and accessibility as a research design resulted in its increasing usage by the growing numbers of final-year undergraduates, postgraduates and small-scale researchers in the social sciences and beyond.
Case Study in Different Disciplines
Swanborn (2010) identifies several disciplinary sources of importance in the development of case study:
The growth and development of many sciences, such as the health sciences, clinical psychotherapy and law [not usually considered a science], went hand in hand with the study of cases…
A specific source of inspiration in social science is constituted by the traditional study of a village or local setting in cultural anthropology…
A third source is the sociological Chicago School…
In political science, historical roots include a strong tradition building on case studies…
Well-known from the field of psychology are the studies of Sigmund Freud and other psychoanalysts. Later on, the study of individual persons (cases) on other domains, such as personality psychology and clinical psychology, developed.
More recently, the study of cases in many policy fields (e.g. social work, youth support, labour market intermediary, the integration of ethnic minorities) presents new impulses. (p. 11)
In other words, there are many diverse ‘traditions’ of case study research, which have been developed and pursued often with little reference to, or even knowledge of, each other. This is, however, by no means unusual in academic research. What case study means, therefore, in political science will be at least subtly different from what it means in sociology (as will the sources referred to), and significantly different from its practice in disciplines which are further removed, such as psychotherapy or health care.
The importance of case study to a range of disciplines has been maintained up until the present day. It is particularly evident (and prevalent) now in the business/management area; for example, in accounting (Cooper and Morgan 2008), industrial marketing management (Beverland and Lindgren 2010), international business (Piekkari, Welch and Paavilainen 2009), operations management (Voss, Tsikriktsis and Frohlich 2002), public administration (Barzelay 1993) and small business studies (Chetty 1996).
Outside the business/management field, case study is most closely associated with other professional disciplines, which have come to dominate provision in most universities and colleges. The most prominent, after business/management, are health/medicine (Jones and Windholz 1990; Lukoff, Edwards and Miller 1998; Yin 1999) and education (Snyder 2012; Stenhouse 1979). Other professional disciplines with strong traditions and current usages of case study include development (Vellema, Ton, de Roo and van Wijk 2013), information systems (Cavaye 1996; Dube and Pare 2003), law (Caulley and Dowdy 1987) and social work (Lee, Mishna and Brennenstuhl 2010).
Case study research is not, however, as already indicated, solely the preserve of professional disciplines, but is also widely practised in what might be termed the ‘pure’ (as opposed to applied) disciplines. These include geography (Curtis et al 2000), philosophy (Ruzzene 2012), political science (Gerring 2006), psychology (Stewart and Chambless 2010) and sociology (Burrawoy 1998).
Some of the studies referenced offer practical guidance on how to apply case study in the discipline in question, while others offer surveys of the ways in which case study has been applied. Examples of case study analyses from different disciplines, and from around the world, including those referred to here, will be presented and discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.
Types of Case Study
Proponents of case study have long recognised that there are different sorts of, or approaches to, case study. Box 2.2 sets out nine alternative typologies of case study: eight of them were suggested during the last two decades, along with an earlier categorisation. These are by no means the only typologies that have been suggested, although they include some of the most influential and most widely cited. It is clear that the more recent examples draw on the earlier examples (compare, for example, Eckstein and Levy). The nine examples given do, however, usefully illustrate the variety of considerations that different authors bring to bear, and the different terminologies used, as well as their common concerns.
Box 2.2 Types of Case Study
1 Configurative-idiographic study – dealing ‘with complex collective individuals’
2 Disciplined-configurative study – ‘application to cases of frameworks of inquiry’
3 Heuristic case studies – ‘serving to find out’
4 Plausibility probes – to establish whether broader, more painstaking studies might be valuable
5 Crucial case studies – tests of theory. (Eckstein 1975, pp. 97–113)
1 The intensive case study (including interpretative and explanatory)‘The goal is to provide a history, description or interpretation of unique and typical experiences or events. These events become the basis for developing theory from an understanding of the context in which certain events occurred.’
2 Comparative case studies (case surveys, case comparisons, creative interpretations)‘…emphasize the use of contrasting observations from varied settings and highlight the development