when to use case study in 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

Experimental Design – Types, Methods, Guide

Ethnographic Research -Types, Methods and Guide

Survey Research – Types, Methods, Examples

Mixed Methods Research – Types & Analysis

Observational Research – Methods and Guide

The Ultimate Guide to Qualitative Research - Part 1: The Basics

• Introduction and overview
• What is qualitative research?
• What is qualitative data?
• Examples of qualitative data
• Qualitative vs. quantitative research
• Mixed methods
• Qualitative research preparation
• Theoretical perspective
• Theoretical framework
• Literature reviews

Research question

• Conceptual framework
• Conceptual vs. theoretical framework

Data collection

• Qualitative research methods
• Focus groups
• Observational research

What is a case study?

Applications for case study research, what is a good case study, process of case study design, benefits and limitations of case studies.

• Ethnographical research
• Ethical considerations
• Confidentiality and privacy
• Power dynamics
• Reflexivity

Case studies

Case studies are essential to qualitative research , offering a lens through which researchers can investigate complex phenomena within their real-life contexts. This chapter explores the concept, purpose, applications, examples, and types of case studies and provides guidance on how to conduct case study research effectively.

Whereas quantitative methods look at phenomena at scale, case study research looks at a concept or phenomenon in considerable detail. While analyzing a single case can help understand one perspective regarding the object of research inquiry, analyzing multiple cases can help obtain a more holistic sense of the topic or issue. Let's provide a basic definition of a case study, then explore its characteristics and role in the qualitative research process.

Definition of a case study

A case study in qualitative research is a strategy of inquiry that involves an in-depth investigation of a phenomenon within its real-world context. It provides researchers with the opportunity to acquire an in-depth understanding of intricate details that might not be as apparent or accessible through other methods of research. The specific case or cases being studied can be a single person, group, or organization – demarcating what constitutes a relevant case worth studying depends on the researcher and their research question .

Among qualitative research methods , a case study relies on multiple sources of evidence, such as documents, artifacts, interviews , or observations , to present a complete and nuanced understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. The objective is to illuminate the readers' understanding of the phenomenon beyond its abstract statistical or theoretical explanations.

Characteristics of case studies

Case studies typically possess a number of distinct characteristics that set them apart from other research methods. These characteristics include a focus on holistic description and explanation, flexibility in the design and data collection methods, reliance on multiple sources of evidence, and emphasis on the context in which the phenomenon occurs.

Furthermore, case studies can often involve a longitudinal examination of the case, meaning they study the case over a period of time. These characteristics allow case studies to yield comprehensive, in-depth, and richly contextualized insights about the phenomenon of interest.

The role of case studies in research

Case studies hold a unique position in the broader landscape of research methods aimed at theory development. They are instrumental when the primary research interest is to gain an intensive, detailed understanding of a phenomenon in its real-life context.

In addition, case studies can serve different purposes within research - they can be used for exploratory, descriptive, or explanatory purposes, depending on the research question and objectives. This flexibility and depth make case studies a valuable tool in the toolkit of qualitative researchers.

Remember, a well-conducted case study can offer a rich, insightful contribution to both academic and practical knowledge through theory development or theory verification, thus enhancing our understanding of complex phenomena in their real-world contexts.

What is the purpose of a case study?

Case study research aims for a more comprehensive understanding of phenomena, requiring various research methods to gather information for qualitative analysis . Ultimately, a case study can allow the researcher to gain insight into a particular object of inquiry and develop a theoretical framework relevant to the research inquiry.

Why use case studies in qualitative research?

Using case studies as a research strategy depends mainly on the nature of the research question and the researcher's access to the data.

Conducting case study research provides a level of detail and contextual richness that other research methods might not offer. They are beneficial when there's a need to understand complex social phenomena within their natural contexts.

The explanatory, exploratory, and descriptive roles of case studies

Case studies can take on various roles depending on the research objectives. They can be exploratory when the research aims to discover new phenomena or define new research questions; they are descriptive when the objective is to depict a phenomenon within its context in a detailed manner; and they can be explanatory if the goal is to understand specific relationships within the studied context. Thus, the versatility of case studies allows researchers to approach their topic from different angles, offering multiple ways to uncover and interpret the data .

The impact of case studies on knowledge development

Case studies play a significant role in knowledge development across various disciplines. Analysis of cases provides an avenue for researchers to explore phenomena within their context based on the collected data.

This can result in the production of rich, practical insights that can be instrumental in both theory-building and practice. Case studies allow researchers to delve into the intricacies and complexities of real-life situations, uncovering insights that might otherwise remain hidden.

Types of case studies

In qualitative research , a case study is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Depending on the nature of the research question and the specific objectives of the study, researchers might choose to use different types of case studies. These types differ in their focus, methodology, and the level of detail they provide about the phenomenon under investigation.

Understanding these types is crucial for selecting the most appropriate approach for your research project and effectively achieving your research goals. Let's briefly look at the main types of case studies.

Exploratory case studies

Exploratory case studies are typically conducted to develop a theory or framework around an understudied phenomenon. They can also serve as a precursor to a larger-scale research project. Exploratory case studies are useful when a researcher wants to identify the key issues or questions which can spur more extensive study or be used to develop propositions for further research. These case studies are characterized by flexibility, allowing researchers to explore various aspects of a phenomenon as they emerge, which can also form the foundation for subsequent studies.

Descriptive case studies

Descriptive case studies aim to provide a complete and accurate representation of a phenomenon or event within its context. These case studies are often based on an established theoretical framework, which guides how data is collected and analyzed. The researcher is concerned with describing the phenomenon in detail, as it occurs naturally, without trying to influence or manipulate it.

Explanatory case studies

Explanatory case studies are focused on explanation - they seek to clarify how or why certain phenomena occur. Often used in complex, real-life situations, they can be particularly valuable in clarifying causal relationships among concepts and understanding the interplay between different factors within a specific context.

Intrinsic, instrumental, and collective case studies

These three categories of case studies focus on the nature and purpose of the study. An intrinsic case study is conducted when a researcher has an inherent interest in the case itself. Instrumental case studies are employed when the case is used to provide insight into a particular issue or phenomenon. A collective case study, on the other hand, involves studying multiple cases simultaneously to investigate some general phenomena.

Each type of case study serves a different purpose and has its own strengths and challenges. The selection of the type should be guided by the research question and objectives, as well as the context and constraints of the research.

The flexibility, depth, and contextual richness offered by case studies make this approach an excellent research method for various fields of study. They enable researchers to investigate real-world phenomena within their specific contexts, capturing nuances that other research methods might miss. Across numerous fields, case studies provide valuable insights into complex issues.

Critical information systems research

Case studies provide a detailed understanding of the role and impact of information systems in different contexts. They offer a platform to explore how information systems are designed, implemented, and used and how they interact with various social, economic, and political factors. Case studies in this field often focus on examining the intricate relationship between technology, organizational processes, and user behavior, helping to uncover insights that can inform better system design and implementation.

Health research

Health research is another field where case studies are highly valuable. They offer a way to explore patient experiences, healthcare delivery processes, and the impact of various interventions in a real-world context.

Case studies can provide a deep understanding of a patient's journey, giving insights into the intricacies of disease progression, treatment effects, and the psychosocial aspects of health and illness.

Asthma research studies

Specifically within medical research, studies on asthma often employ case studies to explore the individual and environmental factors that influence asthma development, management, and outcomes. A case study can provide rich, detailed data about individual patients' experiences, from the triggers and symptoms they experience to the effectiveness of various management strategies. This can be crucial for developing patient-centered asthma care approaches.

Other fields

Apart from the fields mentioned, case studies are also extensively used in business and management research, education research, and political sciences, among many others. They provide an opportunity to delve into the intricacies of real-world situations, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of various phenomena.

Case studies, with their depth and contextual focus, offer unique insights across these varied fields. They allow researchers to illuminate the complexities of real-life situations, contributing to both theory and practice.

Whatever field you're in, ATLAS.ti puts your data to work for you

Download a free trial of ATLAS.ti to turn your data into insights.

Understanding the key elements of case study design is crucial for conducting rigorous and impactful case study research. A well-structured design guides the researcher through the process, ensuring that the study is methodologically sound and its findings are reliable and valid. The main elements of case study design include the research question , propositions, units of analysis, and the logic linking the data to the propositions.

The research question is the foundation of any research study. A good research question guides the direction of the study and informs the selection of the case, the methods of collecting data, and the analysis techniques. A well-formulated research question in case study research is typically clear, focused, and complex enough to merit further detailed examination of the relevant case(s).

Propositions

Propositions, though not necessary in every case study, provide a direction by stating what we might expect to find in the data collected. They guide how data is collected and analyzed by helping researchers focus on specific aspects of the case. They are particularly important in explanatory case studies, which seek to understand the relationships among concepts within the studied phenomenon.

Units of analysis

The unit of analysis refers to the case, or the main entity or entities that are being analyzed in the study. In case study research, the unit of analysis can be an individual, a group, an organization, a decision, an event, or even a time period. It's crucial to clearly define the unit of analysis, as it shapes the qualitative data analysis process by allowing the researcher to analyze a particular case and synthesize analysis across multiple case studies to draw conclusions.

Argumentation

This refers to the inferential model that allows researchers to draw conclusions from the data. The researcher needs to ensure that there is a clear link between the data, the propositions (if any), and the conclusions drawn. This argumentation is what enables the researcher to make valid and credible inferences about the phenomenon under study.

Understanding and carefully considering these elements in the design phase of a case study can significantly enhance the quality of the research. It can help ensure that the study is methodologically sound and its findings contribute meaningful insights about the case.

Ready to jumpstart your research with ATLAS.ti?

Conceptualize your research project with our intuitive data analysis interface. Download a free trial today.

Conducting a case study involves several steps, from defining the research question and selecting the case to collecting and analyzing data . This section outlines these key stages, providing a practical guide on how to conduct case study research.

Defining the research question

The first step in case study research is defining a clear, focused research question. This question should guide the entire research process, from case selection to analysis. It's crucial to ensure that the research question is suitable for a case study approach. Typically, such questions are exploratory or descriptive in nature and focus on understanding a phenomenon within its real-life context.

Selecting and defining the case

The selection of the case should be based on the research question and the objectives of the study. It involves choosing a unique example or a set of examples that provide rich, in-depth data about the phenomenon under investigation. After selecting the case, it's crucial to define it clearly, setting the boundaries of the case, including the time period and the specific context.

Previous research can help guide the case study design. When considering a case study, an example of a case could be taken from previous case study research and used to define cases in a new research inquiry. Considering recently published examples can help understand how to select and define cases effectively.

Developing a detailed case study protocol

A case study protocol outlines the procedures and general rules to be followed during the case study. This includes the data collection methods to be used, the sources of data, and the procedures for analysis. Having a detailed case study protocol ensures consistency and reliability in the study.

The protocol should also consider how to work with the people involved in the research context to grant the research team access to collecting data. As mentioned in previous sections of this guide, establishing rapport is an essential component of qualitative research as it shapes the overall potential for collecting and analyzing data.

Collecting data

Gathering data in case study research often involves multiple sources of evidence, including documents, archival records, interviews, observations, and physical artifacts. This allows for a comprehensive understanding of the case. The process for gathering data should be systematic and carefully documented to ensure the reliability and validity of the study.

Analyzing and interpreting data

The next step is analyzing the data. This involves organizing the data , categorizing it into themes or patterns , and interpreting these patterns to answer the research question. The analysis might also involve comparing the findings with prior research or theoretical propositions.

Writing the case study report

The final step is writing the case study report . This should provide a detailed description of the case, the data, the analysis process, and the findings. The report should be clear, organized, and carefully written to ensure that the reader can understand the case and the conclusions drawn from it.

Each of these steps is crucial in ensuring that the case study research is rigorous, reliable, and provides valuable insights about the case.

The type, depth, and quality of data in your study can significantly influence the validity and utility of the study. In case study research, data is usually collected from multiple sources to provide a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the case. This section will outline the various methods of collecting data used in case study research and discuss considerations for ensuring the quality of the data.

Interviews are a common method of gathering data in case study research. They can provide rich, in-depth data about the perspectives, experiences, and interpretations of the individuals involved in the case. Interviews can be structured , semi-structured , or unstructured , depending on the research question and the degree of flexibility needed.

Observations

Observations involve the researcher observing the case in its natural setting, providing first-hand information about the case and its context. Observations can provide data that might not be revealed in interviews or documents, such as non-verbal cues or contextual information.

Documents and artifacts

Documents and archival records provide a valuable source of data in case study research. They can include reports, letters, memos, meeting minutes, email correspondence, and various public and private documents related to the case.

These records can provide historical context, corroborate evidence from other sources, and offer insights into the case that might not be apparent from interviews or observations.

Physical artifacts refer to any physical evidence related to the case, such as tools, products, or physical environments. These artifacts can provide tangible insights into the case, complementing the data gathered from other sources.

Ensuring the quality of data collection

Determining the quality of data in case study research requires careful planning and execution. It's crucial to ensure that the data is reliable, accurate, and relevant to the research question. This involves selecting appropriate methods of collecting data, properly training interviewers or observers, and systematically recording and storing the data. It also includes considering ethical issues related to collecting and handling data, such as obtaining informed consent and ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of the participants.

Data analysis

Analyzing case study research involves making sense of the rich, detailed data to answer the research question. This process can be challenging due to the volume and complexity of case study data. However, a systematic and rigorous approach to analysis can ensure that the findings are credible and meaningful. This section outlines the main steps and considerations in analyzing data in case study research.

Organizing the data

The first step in the analysis is organizing the data. This involves sorting the data into manageable sections, often according to the data source or the theme. This step can also involve transcribing interviews, digitizing physical artifacts, or organizing observational data.

Categorizing and coding the data

Once the data is organized, the next step is to categorize or code the data. This involves identifying common themes, patterns, or concepts in the data and assigning codes to relevant data segments. Coding can be done manually or with the help of software tools, and in either case, qualitative analysis software can greatly facilitate the entire coding process. Coding helps to reduce the data to a set of themes or categories that can be more easily analyzed.

Identifying patterns and themes

After coding the data, the researcher looks for patterns or themes in the coded data. This involves comparing and contrasting the codes and looking for relationships or patterns among them. The identified patterns and themes should help answer the research question.

Interpreting the data

Once patterns and themes have been identified, the next step is to interpret these findings. This involves explaining what the patterns or themes mean in the context of the research question and the case. This interpretation should be grounded in the data, but it can also involve drawing on theoretical concepts or prior research.

Verification of the data

The last step in the analysis is verification. This involves checking the accuracy and consistency of the analysis process and confirming that the findings are supported by the data. This can involve re-checking the original data, checking the consistency of codes, or seeking feedback from research participants or peers.

Like any research method , case study research has its strengths and limitations. Researchers must be aware of these, as they can influence the design, conduct, and interpretation of the study.

Understanding the strengths and limitations of case study research can also guide researchers in deciding whether this approach is suitable for their research question . This section outlines some of the key strengths and limitations of case study research.

Benefits include the following:

• Rich, detailed data: One of the main strengths of case study research is that it can generate rich, detailed data about the case. This can provide a deep understanding of the case and its context, which can be valuable in exploring complex phenomena.
• Flexibility: Case study research is flexible in terms of design , data collection , and analysis . A sufficient degree of flexibility allows the researcher to adapt the study according to the case and the emerging findings.
• Real-world context: Case study research involves studying the case in its real-world context, which can provide valuable insights into the interplay between the case and its context.
• Multiple sources of evidence: Case study research often involves collecting data from multiple sources , which can enhance the robustness and validity of the findings.

On the other hand, researchers should consider the following limitations:

• Generalizability: A common criticism of case study research is that its findings might not be generalizable to other cases due to the specificity and uniqueness of each case.
• Time and resource intensive: Case study research can be time and resource intensive due to the depth of the investigation and the amount of collected data.
• Complexity of analysis: The rich, detailed data generated in case study research can make analyzing the data challenging.
• Subjectivity: Given the nature of case study research, there may be a higher degree of subjectivity in interpreting the data , so researchers need to reflect on this and transparently convey to audiences how the research was conducted.

Being aware of these strengths and limitations can help researchers design and conduct case study research effectively and interpret and report the findings appropriately.

Ready to analyze your data with ATLAS.ti?

See how our intuitive software can draw key insights from your data with a free trial today.

Research Writing and Analysis

• NVivo Group and Study Sessions
• SPSS This link opens in a new window
• Statistical Analysis Group sessions
• Using Qualtrics
• Dissertation and Data Analysis Group Sessions
• Defense Schedule - Commons Calendar This link opens in a new window
• Research Process Flow Chart
• Research Alignment Chapter 1 This link opens in a new window
• Step 1: Seek Out Evidence
• Step 2: Explain
• Step 3: The Big Picture
• Step 4: Own It
• Step 5: Illustrate
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review This link opens in a new window
• Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
• How to Synthesize and Analyze
• Synthesis and Analysis Practice
• Synthesis and Analysis Group Sessions
• Problem Statement
• Purpose Statement
• Conceptual Framework
• Theoretical Framework
• Locating Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks This link opens in a new window
• Quantitative Research Questions
• Qualitative Research Questions
• Trustworthiness of Qualitative Data
• Analysis and Coding Example- Qualitative Data
• Thematic Data Analysis in Qualitative Design
• Dissertation to Journal Article This link opens in a new window
• International Journal of Online Graduate Education (IJOGE) This link opens in a new window
• Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning (JRIT&L) This link opens in a new window

Writing a Case Study

What is a case study?

A Case study is: 

• An in-depth research design that primarily uses a qualitative methodology but sometimes​​ includes quantitative methodology.
• Used to examine an identifiable problem confirmed through research.
• Used to investigate an individual, group of people, organization, or event.
• Used to mostly answer "how" and "why" questions.

What are the different types of case studies?

Note: These are the primary case studies. As you continue to research and learn

about case studies you will begin to find a robust list of different types. 

Who are your case study participants?

What is triangulation ? 

Validity and credibility are an essential part of the case study. Therefore, the researcher should include triangulation to ensure trustworthiness while accurately reflecting what the researcher seeks to investigate.

How to write a Case Study?

When developing a case study, there are different ways you could present the information, but remember to include the five parts for your case study.

Was this resource helpful?

• << Previous: Thematic Data Analysis in Qualitative Design
• Next: Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS) >>
• Last Updated: May 29, 2024 8:05 AM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/researchtools

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

A case study research paper examines a person, place, event, condition, phenomenon, or other type of subject of analysis in order to extrapolate  key themes and results that help predict future trends, illuminate previously hidden issues that can be applied to practice, and/or provide a means for understanding an important research problem with greater clarity. A case study research paper usually examines a single subject of analysis, but case study papers can also be designed as a comparative investigation that shows relationships between two or more subjects. The methods used to study a case can rest within a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method investigative paradigm.

Case Studies. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010 ; “What is a Case Study?” In Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How? London: SAGE, 2010.

How to Approach Writing a Case Study Research Paper

General information about how to choose a topic to investigate can be found under the " Choosing a Research Problem " tab in the Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper writing guide. Review this page because it may help you identify a subject of analysis that can be investigated using a case study design.

However, identifying a case to investigate involves more than choosing the research problem . A case study encompasses a problem contextualized around the application of in-depth analysis, interpretation, and discussion, often resulting in specific recommendations for action or for improving existing conditions. As Seawright and Gerring note, practical considerations such as time and access to information can influence case selection, but these issues should not be the sole factors used in describing the methodological justification for identifying a particular case to study. Given this, selecting a case includes considering the following:

• The case represents an unusual or atypical example of a research problem that requires more in-depth analysis? Cases often represent a topic that rests on the fringes of prior investigations because the case may provide new ways of understanding the research problem. For example, if the research problem is to identify strategies to improve policies that support girl's access to secondary education in predominantly Muslim nations, you could consider using Azerbaijan as a case study rather than selecting a more obvious nation in the Middle East. Doing so may reveal important new insights into recommending how governments in other predominantly Muslim nations can formulate policies that support improved access to education for girls.
• The case provides important insight or illuminate a previously hidden problem? In-depth analysis of a case can be based on the hypothesis that the case study will reveal trends or issues that have not been exposed in prior research or will reveal new and important implications for practice. For example, anecdotal evidence may suggest drug use among homeless veterans is related to their patterns of travel throughout the day. Assuming prior studies have not looked at individual travel choices as a way to study access to illicit drug use, a case study that observes a homeless veteran could reveal how issues of personal mobility choices facilitate regular access to illicit drugs. Note that it is important to conduct a thorough literature review to ensure that your assumption about the need to reveal new insights or previously hidden problems is valid and evidence-based.
• The case challenges and offers a counter-point to prevailing assumptions? Over time, research on any given topic can fall into a trap of developing assumptions based on outdated studies that are still applied to new or changing conditions or the idea that something should simply be accepted as "common sense," even though the issue has not been thoroughly tested in current practice. A case study analysis may offer an opportunity to gather evidence that challenges prevailing assumptions about a research problem and provide a new set of recommendations applied to practice that have not been tested previously. For example, perhaps there has been a long practice among scholars to apply a particular theory in explaining the relationship between two subjects of analysis. Your case could challenge this assumption by applying an innovative theoretical framework [perhaps borrowed from another discipline] to explore whether this approach offers new ways of understanding the research problem. Taking a contrarian stance is one of the most important ways that new knowledge and understanding develops from existing literature.
• The case provides an opportunity to pursue action leading to the resolution of a problem? Another way to think about choosing a case to study is to consider how the results from investigating a particular case may result in findings that reveal ways in which to resolve an existing or emerging problem. For example, studying the case of an unforeseen incident, such as a fatal accident at a railroad crossing, can reveal hidden issues that could be applied to preventative measures that contribute to reducing the chance of accidents in the future. In this example, a case study investigating the accident could lead to a better understanding of where to strategically locate additional signals at other railroad crossings so as to better warn drivers of an approaching train, particularly when visibility is hindered by heavy rain, fog, or at night.
• The case offers a new direction in future research? A case study can be used as a tool for an exploratory investigation that highlights the need for further research about the problem. A case can be used when there are few studies that help predict an outcome or that establish a clear understanding about how best to proceed in addressing a problem. For example, after conducting a thorough literature review [very important!], you discover that little research exists showing the ways in which women contribute to promoting water conservation in rural communities of east central Africa. A case study of how women contribute to saving water in a rural village of Uganda can lay the foundation for understanding the need for more thorough research that documents how women in their roles as cooks and family caregivers think about water as a valuable resource within their community. This example of a case study could also point to the need for scholars to build new theoretical frameworks around the topic [e.g., applying feminist theories of work and family to the issue of water conservation].

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” Academy of Management Review 14 (October 1989): 532-550; Emmel, Nick. Sampling and Choosing Cases in Qualitative Research: A Realist Approach . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2013; Gerring, John. “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?” American Political Science Review 98 (May 2004): 341-354; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Seawright, Jason and John Gerring. "Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research." Political Research Quarterly 61 (June 2008): 294-308.

Structure and Writing Style

The purpose of a paper in the social sciences designed around a case study is to thoroughly investigate a subject of analysis in order to reveal a new understanding about the research problem and, in so doing, contributing new knowledge to what is already known from previous studies. In applied social sciences disciplines [e.g., education, social work, public administration, etc.], case studies may also be used to reveal best practices, highlight key programs, or investigate interesting aspects of professional work.

In general, the structure of a case study research paper is not all that different from a standard college-level research paper. However, there are subtle differences you should be aware of. Here are the key elements to organizing and writing a case study research paper.

I.  Introduction

As with any research paper, your introduction should serve as a roadmap for your readers to ascertain the scope and purpose of your study . The introduction to a case study research paper, however, should not only describe the research problem and its significance, but you should also succinctly describe why the case is being used and how it relates to addressing the problem. The two elements should be linked. With this in mind, a good introduction answers these four questions:

• What is being studied? Describe the research problem and describe the subject of analysis [the case] you have chosen to address the problem. Explain how they are linked and what elements of the case will help to expand knowledge and understanding about the problem.
• Why is this topic important to investigate? Describe the significance of the research problem and state why a case study design and the subject of analysis that the paper is designed around is appropriate in addressing the problem.
• What did we know about this topic before I did this study? Provide background that helps lead the reader into the more in-depth literature review to follow. If applicable, summarize prior case study research applied to the research problem and why it fails to adequately address the problem. Describe why your case will be useful. If no prior case studies have been used to address the research problem, explain why you have selected this subject of analysis.
• How will this study advance new knowledge or new ways of understanding? Explain why your case study will be suitable in helping to expand knowledge and understanding about the research problem.

Each of these questions should be addressed in no more than a few paragraphs. Exceptions to this can be when you are addressing a complex research problem or subject of analysis that requires more in-depth background information.

II.  Literature Review

The literature review for a case study research paper is generally structured the same as it is for any college-level research paper. The difference, however, is that the literature review is focused on providing background information and  enabling historical interpretation of the subject of analysis in relation to the research problem the case is intended to address . This includes synthesizing studies that help to:

• Place relevant works in the context of their contribution to understanding the case study being investigated . This would involve summarizing studies that have used a similar subject of analysis to investigate the research problem. If there is literature using the same or a very similar case to study, you need to explain why duplicating past research is important [e.g., conditions have changed; prior studies were conducted long ago, etc.].
• Describe the relationship each work has to the others under consideration that informs the reader why this case is applicable . Your literature review should include a description of any works that support using the case to investigate the research problem and the underlying research questions.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research using the case study . If applicable, review any research that has examined the research problem using a different research design. Explain how your use of a case study design may reveal new knowledge or a new perspective or that can redirect research in an important new direction.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies . This refers to synthesizing any literature that points to unresolved issues of concern about the research problem and describing how the subject of analysis that forms the case study can help resolve these existing contradictions.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research . Your review should examine any literature that lays a foundation for understanding why your case study design and the subject of analysis around which you have designed your study may reveal a new way of approaching the research problem or offer a perspective that points to the need for additional research.
• Expose any gaps that exist in the literature that the case study could help to fill . Summarize any literature that not only shows how your subject of analysis contributes to understanding the research problem, but how your case contributes to a new way of understanding the problem that prior research has failed to do.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important!] . Collectively, your literature review should always place your case study within the larger domain of prior research about the problem. The overarching purpose of reviewing pertinent literature in a case study paper is to demonstrate that you have thoroughly identified and synthesized prior studies in relation to explaining the relevance of the case in addressing the research problem.

III.  Method

In this section, you explain why you selected a particular case [i.e., subject of analysis] and the strategy you used to identify and ultimately decide that your case was appropriate in addressing the research problem. The way you describe the methods used varies depending on the type of subject of analysis that constitutes your case study.

If your subject of analysis is an incident or event . In the social and behavioral sciences, the event or incident that represents the case to be studied is usually bounded by time and place, with a clear beginning and end and with an identifiable location or position relative to its surroundings. The subject of analysis can be a rare or critical event or it can focus on a typical or regular event. The purpose of studying a rare event is to illuminate new ways of thinking about the broader research problem or to test a hypothesis. Critical incident case studies must describe the method by which you identified the event and explain the process by which you determined the validity of this case to inform broader perspectives about the research problem or to reveal new findings. However, the event does not have to be a rare or uniquely significant to support new thinking about the research problem or to challenge an existing hypothesis. For example, Walo, Bull, and Breen conducted a case study to identify and evaluate the direct and indirect economic benefits and costs of a local sports event in the City of Lismore, New South Wales, Australia. The purpose of their study was to provide new insights from measuring the impact of a typical local sports event that prior studies could not measure well because they focused on large "mega-events." Whether the event is rare or not, the methods section should include an explanation of the following characteristics of the event: a) when did it take place; b) what were the underlying circumstances leading to the event; and, c) what were the consequences of the event in relation to the research problem.

If your subject of analysis is a person. Explain why you selected this particular individual to be studied and describe what experiences they have had that provide an opportunity to advance new understandings about the research problem. Mention any background about this person which might help the reader understand the significance of their experiences that make them worthy of study. This includes describing the relationships this person has had with other people, institutions, and/or events that support using them as the subject for a case study research paper. It is particularly important to differentiate the person as the subject of analysis from others and to succinctly explain how the person relates to examining the research problem [e.g., why is one politician in a particular local election used to show an increase in voter turnout from any other candidate running in the election]. Note that these issues apply to a specific group of people used as a case study unit of analysis [e.g., a classroom of students].

If your subject of analysis is a place. In general, a case study that investigates a place suggests a subject of analysis that is unique or special in some way and that this uniqueness can be used to build new understanding or knowledge about the research problem. A case study of a place must not only describe its various attributes relevant to the research problem [e.g., physical, social, historical, cultural, economic, political], but you must state the method by which you determined that this place will illuminate new understandings about the research problem. It is also important to articulate why a particular place as the case for study is being used if similar places also exist [i.e., if you are studying patterns of homeless encampments of veterans in open spaces, explain why you are studying Echo Park in Los Angeles rather than Griffith Park?]. If applicable, describe what type of human activity involving this place makes it a good choice to study [e.g., prior research suggests Echo Park has more homeless veterans].

If your subject of analysis is a phenomenon. A phenomenon refers to a fact, occurrence, or circumstance that can be studied or observed but with the cause or explanation to be in question. In this sense, a phenomenon that forms your subject of analysis can encompass anything that can be observed or presumed to exist but is not fully understood. In the social and behavioral sciences, the case usually focuses on human interaction within a complex physical, social, economic, cultural, or political system. For example, the phenomenon could be the observation that many vehicles used by ISIS fighters are small trucks with English language advertisements on them. The research problem could be that ISIS fighters are difficult to combat because they are highly mobile. The research questions could be how and by what means are these vehicles used by ISIS being supplied to the militants and how might supply lines to these vehicles be cut off? How might knowing the suppliers of these trucks reveal larger networks of collaborators and financial support? A case study of a phenomenon most often encompasses an in-depth analysis of a cause and effect that is grounded in an interactive relationship between people and their environment in some way.

NOTE:   The choice of the case or set of cases to study cannot appear random. Evidence that supports the method by which you identified and chose your subject of analysis should clearly support investigation of the research problem and linked to key findings from your literature review. Be sure to cite any studies that helped you determine that the case you chose was appropriate for examining the problem.

IV.  Discussion

The main elements of your discussion section are generally the same as any research paper, but centered around interpreting and drawing conclusions about the key findings from your analysis of the case study. Note that a general social sciences research paper may contain a separate section to report findings. However, in a paper designed around a case study, it is common to combine a description of the results with the discussion about their implications. The objectives of your discussion section should include the following:

Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings Briefly reiterate the research problem you are investigating and explain why the subject of analysis around which you designed the case study were used. You should then describe the findings revealed from your study of the case using direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results. Highlight any findings that were unexpected or especially profound.

Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important Systematically explain the meaning of your case study findings and why you believe they are important. Begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most important or surprising finding first, then systematically review each finding. Be sure to thoroughly extrapolate what your analysis of the case can tell the reader about situations or conditions beyond the actual case that was studied while, at the same time, being careful not to misconstrue or conflate a finding that undermines the external validity of your conclusions.

Relate the Findings to Similar Studies No study in the social sciences is so novel or possesses such a restricted focus that it has absolutely no relation to previously published research. The discussion section should relate your case study results to those found in other studies, particularly if questions raised from prior studies served as the motivation for choosing your subject of analysis. This is important because comparing and contrasting the findings of other studies helps support the overall importance of your results and it highlights how and in what ways your case study design and the subject of analysis differs from prior research about the topic.

Consider Alternative Explanations of the Findings Remember that the purpose of social science research is to discover and not to prove. When writing the discussion section, you should carefully consider all possible explanations revealed by the case study results, rather than just those that fit your hypothesis or prior assumptions and biases. Be alert to what the in-depth analysis of the case may reveal about the research problem, including offering a contrarian perspective to what scholars have stated in prior research if that is how the findings can be interpreted from your case.

Acknowledge the Study's Limitations You can state the study's limitations in the conclusion section of your paper but describing the limitations of your subject of analysis in the discussion section provides an opportunity to identify the limitations and explain why they are not significant. This part of the discussion section should also note any unanswered questions or issues your case study could not address. More detailed information about how to document any limitations to your research can be found here .

Suggest Areas for Further Research Although your case study may offer important insights about the research problem, there are likely additional questions related to the problem that remain unanswered or findings that unexpectedly revealed themselves as a result of your in-depth analysis of the case. Be sure that the recommendations for further research are linked to the research problem and that you explain why your recommendations are valid in other contexts and based on the original assumptions of your study.

V.  Conclusion

As with any research paper, you should summarize your conclusion in clear, simple language; emphasize how the findings from your case study differs from or supports prior research and why. Do not simply reiterate the discussion section. Provide a synthesis of key findings presented in the paper to show how these converge to address the research problem. If you haven't already done so in the discussion section, be sure to document the limitations of your case study and any need for further research.

The function of your paper's conclusion is to: 1) reiterate the main argument supported by the findings from your case study; 2) state clearly the context, background, and necessity of pursuing the research problem using a case study design in relation to an issue, controversy, or a gap found from reviewing the literature; and, 3) provide a place to persuasively and succinctly restate the significance of your research problem, given that the reader has now been presented with in-depth information about the topic.

Consider the following points to help ensure your conclusion is appropriate:

• If the argument or purpose of your paper is complex, you may need to summarize these points for your reader.
• If prior to your conclusion, you have not yet explained the significance of your findings or if you are proceeding inductively, use the conclusion of your paper to describe your main points and explain their significance.
• Move from a detailed to a general level of consideration of the case study's findings that returns the topic to the context provided by the introduction or within a new context that emerges from your case study findings.

Note that, depending on the discipline you are writing in or the preferences of your professor, the concluding paragraph may contain your final reflections on the evidence presented as it applies to practice or on the essay's central research problem. However, the nature of being introspective about the subject of analysis you have investigated will depend on whether you are explicitly asked to express your observations in this way.

Problems to Avoid

Overgeneralization One of the goals of a case study is to lay a foundation for understanding broader trends and issues applied to similar circumstances. However, be careful when drawing conclusions from your case study. They must be evidence-based and grounded in the results of the study; otherwise, it is merely speculation. Looking at a prior example, it would be incorrect to state that a factor in improving girls access to education in Azerbaijan and the policy implications this may have for improving access in other Muslim nations is due to girls access to social media if there is no documentary evidence from your case study to indicate this. There may be anecdotal evidence that retention rates were better for girls who were engaged with social media, but this observation would only point to the need for further research and would not be a definitive finding if this was not a part of your original research agenda.

Failure to Document Limitations No case is going to reveal all that needs to be understood about a research problem. Therefore, just as you have to clearly state the limitations of a general research study , you must describe the specific limitations inherent in the subject of analysis. For example, the case of studying how women conceptualize the need for water conservation in a village in Uganda could have limited application in other cultural contexts or in areas where fresh water from rivers or lakes is plentiful and, therefore, conservation is understood more in terms of managing access rather than preserving access to a scarce resource.

Failure to Extrapolate All Possible Implications Just as you don't want to over-generalize from your case study findings, you also have to be thorough in the consideration of all possible outcomes or recommendations derived from your findings. If you do not, your reader may question the validity of your analysis, particularly if you failed to document an obvious outcome from your case study research. For example, in the case of studying the accident at the railroad crossing to evaluate where and what types of warning signals should be located, you failed to take into consideration speed limit signage as well as warning signals. When designing your case study, be sure you have thoroughly addressed all aspects of the problem and do not leave gaps in your analysis that leave the reader questioning the results.

Case Studies. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Gerring, John. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices . New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007; Merriam, Sharan B. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education . Rev. ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1998; Miller, Lisa L. “The Use of Case Studies in Law and Social Science Research.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14 (2018): TBD; Mills, Albert J., Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Putney, LeAnn Grogan. "Case Study." In Encyclopedia of Research Design , Neil J. Salkind, editor. (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010), pp. 116-120; Simons, Helen. Case Study Research in Practice . London: SAGE Publications, 2009;  Kratochwill,  Thomas R. and Joel R. Levin, editors. Single-Case Research Design and Analysis: New Development for Psychology and Education .  Hilldsale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992; Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How? London : SAGE, 2010; Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods . 6th edition. Los Angeles, CA, SAGE Publications, 2014; Walo, Maree, Adrian Bull, and Helen Breen. “Achieving Economic Benefits at Local Events: A Case Study of a Local Sports Event.” Festival Management and Event Tourism 4 (1996): 95-106.

Writing Tip

At Least Five Misconceptions about Case Study Research

Social science case studies are often perceived as limited in their ability to create new knowledge because they are not randomly selected and findings cannot be generalized to larger populations. Flyvbjerg examines five misunderstandings about case study research and systematically "corrects" each one. To quote, these are:

Misunderstanding 1 :  General, theoretical [context-independent] knowledge is more valuable than concrete, practical [context-dependent] knowledge. Misunderstanding 2 :  One cannot generalize on the basis of an individual case; therefore, the case study cannot contribute to scientific development. Misunderstanding 3 :  The case study is most useful for generating hypotheses; that is, in the first stage of a total research process, whereas other methods are more suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building. Misunderstanding 4 :  The case study contains a bias toward verification, that is, a tendency to confirm the researcher’s preconceived notions. Misunderstanding 5 :  It is often difficult to summarize and develop general propositions and theories on the basis of specific case studies [p. 221].

While writing your paper, think introspectively about how you addressed these misconceptions because to do so can help you strengthen the validity and reliability of your research by clarifying issues of case selection, the testing and challenging of existing assumptions, the interpretation of key findings, and the summation of case outcomes. Think of a case study research paper as a complete, in-depth narrative about the specific properties and key characteristics of your subject of analysis applied to the research problem.

Flyvbjerg, Bent. “Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 12 (April 2006): 219-245.

• << Previous: Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Next: Writing a Field Report >>
• Last Updated: Jun 3, 2024 9:44 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

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 7 June 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.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

A newer edition of this book is available.

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

22 Case Study Research: In-Depth Understanding in Context

Helen Simons, School of Education, University of Southampton

• Published: 01 July 2014
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter explores case study as a major approach to research and evaluation. After first noting various contexts in which case studies are commonly used, the chapter focuses on case study research directly Strengths and potential problematic issues are outlined and then key phases of the process. The chapter emphasizes how important it is to design the case, to collect and interpret data in ways that highlight the qualitative, to have an ethical practice that values multiple perspectives and political interests, and to report creatively to facilitate use in policy making and practice. Finally, it explores how to generalize from the single case. Concluding questions center on the need to think more imaginatively about design and the range of methods and forms of reporting requiredto persuade audiences to value qualitative ways of knowing in case study research.

Introduction

This chapter explores case study as a major approach to research and evaluation using primarily qualitative methods, as well as documentary sources, contemporaneous or historical. However, this is not the only way in which case study can be conceived. No one has a monopoly on the term. While sharing a focus on the singular in a particular context, case study has a wide variety of uses, not all associated with research. A case study, in common parlance, documents a particular situation or event in detail in a specific sociopolitical context. The particular can be a person, a classroom, an institution, a program, or a policy. Below I identify different ways in which case study is used before focusing on qualitative case study research in particular. However, first I wish to indicate how I came to advocate and practice this form of research. Origins, context, and opportunity often shape the research processes we endorse. It is helpful for the reader, I think, to know how I came to the perspective I hold.

The Beginnings

I first came to appreciate and enjoy the virtues of case study research when I entered the field of curriculum evaluation and research in the 1970s. The dominant research paradigm for educational research at that time was experimental or quasi- experimental, cost-benefit, or systems analysis, and the dominant curriculum model was aims and objectives ( House, 1993 ). The field was dominated, in effect, by a psychometric view of research in which quantitative methods were preeminent. But the innovative projects we were asked to evaluate (predominantly, but not exclusively, in the humanities) were not amenable to such methodologies. The projects were challenging to the status quo of institutions, involved people interpreting the policy and programs, were implemented differently in different contexts and regions, and had many unexpected effects.

We had no choice but to seek other ways to evaluate these complex programs, and case study was the methodology we found ourselves exploring, in order to understand how the projects were being implemented, why they had positive effects in some regions of the country and not others, and what the outcomes meant in different sociopolitical and cultural contexts. What better way to do this than to talk with people to see how they interpreted the “new” curriculum; to watch how teachers and students put it into practice; to document transactions, outcomes, and unexpected consequences; and to interpret all in the specific context of the case ( Simons, 1971 , 1987 , pp. 55–89). From this point on and in further studies, case study in educational research and evaluation came to be a major methodology for understanding complex educational and social programs. It also extended to other practice professions, such as nursing, health, and social care ( Zucker, 2001 ; Greenhalgh & Worrall, 1997 ; Shaw & Gould, 2001 ). For further details of the evolution of the case study approach and qualitative methodologies in evaluation, see House, 1993 , pp. 2–3; Greene, 2000 ; Simons, 2009 , pp. 14–18; Simons & McCormack, 2007 , pp. 292–311).

This was not exactly the beginning of case study, of course. It has a long history in many disciplines ( Simons, 1980; Ragin, 1992; Gomm, Hammersley, & Foster, 2004 ; Platt, 2007 ), many aspects of which form part of case study practice to this day. But its evolution in the context just described was a major move in the contemporary evolution of the logic of evaluative inquiry ( House, 1980 ). It also coincided with movement toward the qualitative in other disciplines, such as sociology and psychology. This was all part of what Denzin & Lincoln (1994) termed “a quiet methodological revolution” (p. ix) in qualitative inquiry that had been evolving over the course of forty years.

There is a further reason why I continue to advocate and practice case study research and evaluation to this day and that is my personal predilection for trying to understand and represent complexity, for puzzling through the ambiguities that exist in many contexts and programs and for presenting and negotiating different values and interests in fair and just ways.

Put more simply, I like interacting with people, listening to their stories, trials and tribulations—giving them a voice in understanding the contexts and projects with which they are involved, and finding ways to share these with a range of audiences. In other words, the move toward case study methodology described here suited my preference for how I learn.

Concepts and Purposes of Case Study

Before exploring case study as it has come to be established in educational research and evaluation over the past forty years, I wish to acknowledge other uses of case study. More often than not, these relate to purpose, and appropriately so in their different contexts, but many do not have a research intention. For a study to count as research, it would need to be a systematic investigation generating evidence that leads to “new” knowledge that is made public and open to scrutiny. There are many ways to conduct research stemming from different traditions and disciplines, but they all, in different ways, involve these characteristics.

Everyday Usage: Stories We Tell

The most common of these uses of case study is the everyday reference to a person, an anecdote or story illustrative of a particular incident, event, or experience of that person. It is often a short, reported account commonly seen in journalism but also in books exploring a phenomenon, such as recovery from serious accidents or tragedies, where the author chooses to illustrate the story or argument with a “lived” example. This is sometimes written by the author and sometimes by the person whose tale it is. “Let me share with you a story,” is a phrase frequently heard

The spirit behind this common usage and its power to connect can be seen in a report by Tim Adams of the London Olympics opening ceremony’s dramatization by Danny Boyle.

It was the point when we suddenly collectively wised up to the idea that what we are about to receive over the next two weeks was not only about “legacy collateral” and “targeted deliverables,” not about G4S failings and traffic lanes and branding opportunities, but about the second-by-second possibilities of human endeavour and spirit and communality, enacted in multiple places and all at the same time. Stories in other words. ( Adams, 2012 )

This was a collective story, of course, not an individual one, but it does convey some of the major characteristics of case study—that richness of detail, time, place, multiple happenings and experiences—that are also manifest in case study research, although carefully evidenced in the latter instance. We can see from this common usage how people have come to associate case study with story. I return to this thread in the reporting section.

Professions Individual Cases

In professional settings, in health and social care, case studies, often called case histories , are used to accurately record a person’s health or social care history and his or her current symptoms, experience, and treatment. These case histories include facts but also judgments and observations about the person’s reaction to situations or medication. Usually these are confidential. Not dissimilar is the detailed documentation of a case in law, often termed a case precedent when referred to in a court case to support an argument being made. However in law there is a difference in that such case precedents are publicly documented.

Case Studies in Teaching

Exemplars of practice.

In education, but also in health and social care training contexts, case studies have long been used as exemplars of practice. These are brief descriptions with some detail of a person or project’s experience in an area of practice. Though frequently reported accounts, they are based on a person’s experience and sometimes on previous research.

Case scenarios

Management studies are a further context in which case studies are often used. Here, the case is more like a scenario outlining a particular problem situation for the management student to resolve. These scenarios may be based on research but frequently are hypothetical situations used to raise issues for discussion and resolution. What distinguishes these case scenarios and the case exemplars in education from case study research is the intention to use them for teaching purposes.

Country Case Studies

Then there are case studies of programs, projects, and even countries, as in international development, where a whole-country study might be termed a case study or, in the context of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), where an exploration is conducted of the state of the art of a subject, such as education or environmental science in one or several countries. This may be a contemporaneous study and/or what transpired in a program over a period of time. Such studies often do have a research base but frequently are reported accounts that do not detail the design, methodology, and analysis of the case, as a research case study would do, or report in ways that give readers a vicarious experience of what it was like to be there. Such case studies tend to be more knowledge and information-focused than experiential.

Case Study as History

Closer to a research context is case study as history—what transpired at a certain time in a certain place. This is likely to be supported by documentary evidence but not primary data gathering unless it is an oral history. In education, in the late 1970s, Stenhouse (1978) experimented with a case study archive. Using contemporaneous data gathering, primarily through interviewing, he envisaged this database, which he termed a “case record,” forming an archive from which different individuals,, at some later date, could write a “case study.” This approach uses case study as a documentary source to begin to generate a history of education, as the subtitle of Stenhouse’s 1978 paper indicates “Towards a contemporary history of education.”

Case Study Research

From here on, my focus is on case study research per se, adopting for this purpose the following definition:

Case study is an in-depth exploration from multiple perspectives of the complexity and uniqueness of a particular project, policy, institution or system in a “real-life” context. It is research based, inclusive of different methods and is evidence-led. ( Simons, 2009 , p. 21).

For further related definitions of case study, see Stake (1995) , Merriam (1998), and Chadderton & Torrance (2011) . And for definitions from a slightly different perspective, see Yin (2004) and Thomas (2011a) .

Not Defined by Method or Perspective

The inclusion of different methods in the definition quoted above definition signals that case study research is not defined by methodology or method. What defines case study is its singularity and the concept and boundary of the case. It is theoretically possible to conduct a case study using primarily quantitative data if this is the best way of providing evidence to inform the issues the case is exploring. It is equally possible to conduct case study that is mainly qualitative, to engage people with the experience of the case or to provide a rich portrayal of an event, project, or program.

Or one can design the case using mixed methods. This increases the options for learning from different ways of knowing and is sometimes preferred by stakeholders who believe it provides a firmer basis for informing policy. This is not necessarily the case but is beyond the scope of this chapter to explore. For further discussion of the complexities of mixing methods and the virtue of using qualitative methods and case study in a mixed method design, see Greene (2007) .

Case study research may also be conducted from different standpoints—realist, interpretivist, or constructivist, for example. My perspective falls within a constructivist, interpretivist framework. What interests me is how I and those in the case perceive and interpret what we find and how we construct or co-construct understandings of the case. This not only suits my predilection for how I see the world, but also my preferred phenomenological approach to interviewing and curiosity about people and how they act in social and professional life.

Qualitative Case Study Research

Qualitative case study research shares many characteristics with other forms of qualitative research, such as narrative, oral history, life history, ethnography, in-depth interview, and observational studies that utilize qualitative methods. However, its focus, purpose, and origins, in educational research at least, are a little different.

The focus is clearly the study of the singular. The purpose is to portray an in-depth view of the quality and complexity of social/educational programs or policies as they are implemented in specific sociopolitical contexts. What makes it qualitative is its emphasis on subjective ways of knowing, particularly the experiential, practical, and presentational rather than the propositional ( Heron, 1992 , 1999 ) to comprehend and communicate what transpired in the case.

Characteristic Features and Advantages

Case study research is not method dependent, as noted earlier, nor is it constrained by resources or time. Although it can be conducted over several years, which provides an opportunity to explore the process of change and explain how and why things happened, it can equally be carried out contemporaneously in a few days, weeks, or months. This flexibility is extremely useful in many contexts, particularly when a change in policy or unforeseen issues in the field require modifying the design.

Flexibility extends to reporting. The case can be written up in different lengths and forms to meet different audience needs and to maximize use (see the section on Reporting). Using the natural language of participants and familiar methods (like interview, observation, oral history) also enables participants to engage in the research process, thereby contributing significantly to the generation of knowledge of the case. As I have indicated elsewhere ( Simons, 2009 ), “This is both a political and epistemological point. It signals a potential shift in the power base of who controls knowledge and recognizes the importance of co-constructing perceived reality through the relationships and joint understandings we create in the field” (p. 23).

Possible Disadvantages

If one is an advocate, identifying advantages of a research approach is easier than pointing out its disadvantages, something detractors are quite keen to do anyway! But no approach is perfect, and here are some of the issues that often trouble people about case study research. The “sample of one” is an obvious issue that worries those convinced that only large samples can constitute valid research and especially if this is to inform policy. Understanding complexity in depth may not be a sufficient counterargument, and I suspect there is little point in trying to persuade otherwise For frequently, this perception is one of epistemological and methodological, if not ideological, preference.

However, there are some genuine concerns that many case researchers face: the difficulty of processing a mass of data; of “telling the truth” in contexts where people may be identifiable; personal involvement, when the researcher is the main instrument of data gathering; and writing reports that are data-based, yet readable in style and length. But one issue that concerns advocates and nonadvocates alike is how inferences are drawn from the single case.

Answers to some of these issues are covered in the sections that follow. Whether they convince may again be a question of preference. However, it is worth noting here that I do not think we should seek to justify these concerns in terms identified by other methodologies. Many of them are intrinsic to the nature and strength of qualitative case study research.

Subjectivity, for instance, both of participants and researcher is inevitable, as it is in many other qualitative methodologies. This is often the basis on which we act. Rather than see this as bias or something to counter, it is an intelligence that is essential to understanding and interpreting the experience of participants and stakeholders. Such subjectivity needs to be disciplined, of course, through procedures that examine both the validity of individuals’ representations of “their truth”, and demonstrate how the researcher took a reflexive approach to monitoring how his or her own values and predilections may have unduly influenced the data.

Types of Case Study

There are numerous types of case study, too many to categorize, I think, as there are overlaps between them. However, attempts have been made to do this and, for those who value typologies, I refer them to Bassey (1999) and, for a more extended typology, to Thomas (2011b) . A slightly different approach is taken by Gomm, Hammersley, and Foster (2004) in annotating the different emphases in major texts on case study. What I prefer to do here is to highlight a few familiar types to focus the discussion that follows on the practice of case study research.

Stake (1995) offers a threefold distinction that is helpful when it comes to practice, he says, because it influences the methods we choose to gather data (p. 4). He distinguishes between an intrinsic case study , one that is studied to learn about the particular case itself and an instrumental case study , in which we choose a case to gain insight into a particular issue (i.e., the case is instrumental to understanding something else; p. 3). The collective case study is what its name suggests: an extension of the instrumental to several cases.

Theory-led or theory-generated case study is similarly self-explanatory, the first starting from a specific theory that is tested through the case; the second constructing a theory through interpretation of data generated in the case. In other words, one ends rather than begins with a theory. In qualitative case study research, this is the more familiar route. The theory of the case becomes the argument or story you will tell.

Evaluation case study requires a slightly longer description as this is my context of practice, one which has influenced the way I conduct case study and what I choose to emphasize in this chapter. An evaluation case study has three essential features: to determine the value of the case, to include and balance different interests and values, and to report findings to a range of stakeholders in ways that they can use. The reasons for this may be found in the interlude that follows, which offers a brief characterization of the social and ethical practice of evaluation and why qualitative methods are so important in this practice.

Interlude: Social and Ethical Practice of Evaluation

Evaluation is a social practice that documents, portrays, and seeks to understand the value of a particular project, program, or policy. This can be determined by different evaluation methodologies, of course. But the value of qualitative case study is that it is possible to discern this value without decontextualizing the data. While the focus of the case is usually a project, program, policy, or some unit within, studies of key individuals, what I term case profiles , may be embedded within the overall case. In some instances, these profiles, or even shorter cameos of individuals, may be quite prominent. For it is through the perceptions, interpretations, and interactions of people that we learn how policies and programs are enacted ( Kushner, 2000 , p. 12). The program is still the main focus of analysis, but, in exploring how individuals play out their different roles in the program, we get closer to the actual experience and meaning of the program in practice.

Case study evaluation is often commissioned from an external source (government department or other agency) keen to know the worth of publicly funded programs and policies to inform future decision making. It needs to be responsive to issues or questions identified by stakeholders, who often have different values and interests in the expected outcomes and appreciate different perspectives of the program in action. The context also is often highly politicized, and interests can conflict. The task of the evaluator in such situations becomes one of including and balancing all interests and values in the program fairly and justly.

This is an inherently political process and requires an ethical practice that offers participants some protection over the personal data they give as part of the research and agreed audiences access to the findings, presented in ways they can understand. Negotiating what information becomes public can be quite difficult in singular settings where people are identifiable and intricate or problematic transactions have been documented. The consequences that ensue from making knowledge public that hitherto was private may be considerable for those in the case. It may also be difficult to portray some of the contextual detail that would enhance understanding for readers.

The ethical stance that underpins the case study research and evaluation I conduct stems from a theory of ethics that emphasizes the centrality of relationships in the specific context and the consequences for individuals, while remaining aware of the research imperative to publicly report. It is essentially an independent democratic process based on the concepts of fairness and justice, in which confidentiality, negotiation, and accessibility are key principles ( MacDonald, 1976 ; Simons, 2009 , pp. 96–111; and Simons 2010 ). The principles are translated into specific procedures to guide the collection, validation, and dissemination of data in the field. These include:

engaging participants and stakeholders in identifying issues to explore and sometimes also in interpreting the data;

documenting how different people interpret and value the program;

negotiating what data becomes public respecting both the individual’s “right to privacy” and the public’s “right to know”;

offering participants opportunities to check how their data are used in the context of reporting;

reporting in language and forms accessible to a wide range of audiences;

disseminating to audiences within and beyond the case.

For further discussion of the ethics of democratic case study evaluation and examples of their use in practice, see Simons (2000 , 2006 , 2009 , chapter 6, 2010 ).

Designing Case Study Research

Design issues in case study sometimes take second place to those of data gathering, the more exciting task perhaps in starting research. However, it is critical to consider the design at the outset, even if changes are required in practice due to the reality of what is encountered in the field. In this sense, the design of case study is emergent, rather than preordinate, shaped and reshaped as understanding of the significance of foreshadowed issues emerges and more are discovered.

Before entering the field, there are a myriad of planning issues to think about related to stakeholders, participants, and audiences. These include whose values matter, whether to engage them in data gathering and interpretation, the style of reporting appropriate for each, and the ethical guidelines that will underpin data collection and reporting. However, here I emphasize only three: the broad focus of the study, what the case is a case of, and framing questions/issues. These are steps often ignored in an enthusiasm to gather data, resulting in a case study that claims to be research but lacks the basic principles required for generation of valid, public knowledge.

Conceptualize the Topic

First, it is important that the topic of the research is conceptualized in a way that it can be researched (i.e., it is not too wide). This seems an obvious point to make, but failure to think through precisely what it is about your research topic you wish to investigate will have a knock-on effect on the framing of the case, data gathering, and interpretation and may lead, in some instances, to not gathering or analyzing data that actually informs the topic. Further conceptualization or reconceptualization may be necessary as the study proceeds, but it is critical to have a clear focus at the outset.

What Constitutes the Case

Second, I think it is important to decide what would constitute the case (i.e., what it is a case of) and where the boundaries of this lie. This often proves more difficult than first appears. And sometimes, partly because of the semifluid nature of the way the case evolves, it is only possible to finally establish what the case is a case of at the end. Nevertheless, it is useful to identify what the case and its boundaries are at the outset to help focus data collection while maintaining an awareness that these may shift. This is emergent design in action.

In deciding the boundary of the case, there are several factors to bear in mind. Is it bounded by an institution or a unit within an institution, by people within an institution, by region, or by project, program or policy,? If we take a school as an example, the case could be comprised of the principal, teachers, and students, or the boundary could be extended to the cleaners, the caretaker, the receptionist, people who often know a great deal about the subnorms and culture of the institution.

If the case is a policy or particular parameter of a policy, the considerations may be slightly different. People will still be paramount—those who generated the policy and those who implemented it—but there is likely also to be a political culture surrounding the policy that had an influence on the way the policy evolved. Would this be part of the case?

Whatever boundary is chosen, this may change in the course of conducting the study when issues arise that can only be understood by going to another level. What transpires in a classroom, for example, if this is the case, is often partly dependent on the support of the school leadership and culture of the institution and this, in turn, to some extent is dependent on what resources are allocated from the local education administration. Much like a series of Russian dolls, one context inside the other.

Unit of analysis

Thinking about what would constitute the unit of analysis— a classroom, an institution, a program, a region—may help in setting the boundaries of the case, and it will certainly help when it comes to analysis. But this is a slightly different issue from deciding what the case is a case of. Taking a health example, the case may be palliative care support, but the unit of analysis the palliative care ward or wards. If you took the palliative care ward as the unit of analysis this would be as much about how palliative care was exercised in this or that ward than issues about palliative care support in general. In other words, you would need to have specific information and context about how this ward was structured and managed to understand how palliative care was conducted in this particular ward. Here, as in the school example above, you would need to consider which of the many people who populate the ward form part of the case—nurses, interns, or doctors only, or does it extend to patients, cleaners, nurse aides, and medical students?

Framing Questions and Issues

The third most important consideration is how to frame the study, and you are likely to do this once you have selected the site or sites for study. There are at least four approaches. You could start with precise questions, foreshadowed issues ( Smith & Pohland, 1974 ), theories, or a program logic. To some extent, your choice will be dictated by the type of case you have chosen, but also by your personal preference for how to conduct it—in either a structured or open way.

Initial questions give structure; foreshadowed issues more freedom to explore. In qualitative case study, foreshadowed issues are more common, allowing scope for issues to change as the study evolves, guided by participants’ perspectives and events in the field. With this perspective, it is more likely that you will generate a theory of the case toward the end, through your interpretation and analysis.

If you are conducting an instrumental case study, staying close to the questions or foreshadowed issues is necessary to be sure you gain data that will illuminate the central focus of the study. This is critical if you are exploring issues across several cases, although it is possible to do a cross-case analysis from cases that have each followed a different route to discovering significant issues.

Opting to start with a theoretical framework provides a basis for formulating questions and issues, but it can also constrain the study to only those questions/issues that fit the framework. The same is true with using program logic to frame the case. This is an approach frequently adopted in evaluation case study where the evaluator, individually or with stakeholders, examines how the aims and objectives of the program relate to the activities designed to promote it and the outcomes and impacts expected. It provides direction, although it can lead to simply confirming what was anticipated, rather than documenting what transpired in the case.

Whichever approach you choose to frame the case, it is useful to think about the rationale or theory for each question and what methods would best enable you to gain an understanding of them. This will not only start a reflexive process of examining your choices—an important aspect of the process of data gathering and interpretation—it will also aid analysis and interpretation further down the track.

Methodology and Methods

Qualitative case study research, as already noted, appeals to subjective ways of knowing and to a primarily qualitative methodology, that captures experiential understanding ( Stake, 2010 , pp. 56–70). It follows that the main methods of data gathering to access this way of knowing will be qualitative. Interviewing, observation, and document analysis are the primary three, often supported by critical incidents, focus groups, cameos, vignettes, diaries/journals, and photographs. Before gathering any primary data, however, it is useful to search relevant existing sources (written or visual) to learn about the antecedents and context of a project, program, or policy as a backdrop to the case. This can sharpen framing questions, avoid unnecessary data gathering, and shorten the time needed in the field.

Given that there are excellent texts on qualitative methods (see, for example, Denzin & Lincoln, 1994 ; Seale, 1999 ; Silverman, 2000 , 2004 ), I will not discuss all potential relevant methods here, but simply focus on the qualities of the primary methods that are particularly appropriate for case study research.

Primary Qualitative Data Gathering Methods

Interviewing.

The most effective style of interviewing in qualitative case study research to gain in-depth data, document multiple perspectives and experiences and explore contested issues is the unstructured interview, active listening and open questioning are paramount, whatever prequestions or foreshadowed issues have been identified. This can include photographs—a useful starting point with certain cultural groups and the less articulate, to encourage them to tell their story through connecting or identifying with something in the image.

The flexibility of unstructured interviewing has three further advantages for understanding participants’ experiences. First, through questioning, probing, listening, and, above all, paying attention to the silences and what they mean, you can get closer to the meaning of participants’ experiences. It is not always what they say.

Second, unstructured interviewing is useful for engaging participants in the process of research. Instead of starting with questions and issues, invite participants to tell their stories or reflect on specific issues, to conduct their own self-evaluative interview, in fact. Not only will they contribute their particular perspective to the case, they will also learn about themselves, thereby making the process of research educative for them as well as for the audiences of the research.

Third, the open-endedness of this style of interviewing has the potential for creating a dialogue between participants and the researcher and between the researcher and the public, if enough of the dialogue is retained in the publication ( Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985 ).

Observations

Observations in case study research are likely to be close-up descriptions of events, activities, and incidents that detail what happens in a particular context. They will record time, place, specific incidents, transactions, and dialogue, and note characteristics of the setting and of people in it without preconceived categories or judgment. No description is devoid of some judgment in selection, of course, but, on the whole, the intent is to describe the scene or event “as it is,” providing a rich, textured description to give readers a sense of what it was like to be there or provide a basis for later interpretation.

Take the following excerpt from a study of the West Bromwich Operatic Society. It is the first night of a new production, The Producers , by this amateur operatic society. This brief excerpt is from a much longer observation of the overture to the first evening’s performance, detailing exactly what the production is, where it is, and why there is such a tremendous sense of atmosphere and expectation surrounding the event. Space prevents including the whole observation, but I hope you can get a glimmer of the passion and excitement that precedes the performance:

Birmingham, late November, 2011, early evening.... Bars and restaurants spruce up for the evening’s trade. There is a chill in the air but the party season is just starting....

A few hundred yards away, past streaming traffic on Suffolk Street, Queensway, an audience is gathering at the New Alexandra Theatre. The foyer windows shine in the orange sodium night. Above each one is the rubric: WORLD CLASS THEATRE.

Inside the preparatory rituals are being observed; sweets chosen, interval drinks ordered and programmes bought. People swap news and titbits about the production.... The bubble of anticipation grows as the 5-minute warning sounds. People make their way to the auditorium. There have been so many nights like this in the past 110 years since a man named William Coutts invested £10,000 to build this palace of dreams.... So many fantasies have been played under this arch: melodramas and pantomimes, musicals and variety.... So many audiences, settling down in their tip-up seats, wanting to be transported away from work, from ordinariness and private troubles.... The dimming lights act like a mother’s hush. You could touch the silence. Boinnng! A spongy thump on a bass drum, and the horns pipe up that catchy, irrepressible, tasteless tune and already you’re singing under your breath, ‘Springtime for Hitler and Germany....’ The orchestra is out of sight in the pit. There’s just the velvet curtain to watch as your fingers tap along. What’s waiting behind? Then it starts it to move. Opening night.... It’s opening night! ( Matarasso, 2012 , pp. 1–2)

For another and different example—a narrative observation of an everyday but unique incident that details date, time, place, and experience—see Simons (2009 , p. 60).

Such naturalistic observations are also useful in contexts where we cannot understand what is going on through interviewing alone—in cultures with which we are less familiar or where key actors may not share our language or have difficulty expressing it. Careful description in these situations can help identify key issues, discover the norms and values that exist in the culture, and, if sufficiently detailed, allow others to cross corroborate what significance we draw from these observations. This last point is very important to avoid the danger in observation of ascribing motivations to people and meanings to transactions.

Finally, naturalistic observations are very important in highly politicized environments, often the case in commissioned evaluation case study, where individuals in interview may try to elude the “truth” or press on you that their view is the “right” view of the situation. In these contexts, naturalistic observations not only enable you to document interactions as you perceive them, but they also provide a cross-check on the veracity of information obtained in interviews.

Document analysis

Analysis of documents, as already intimated, is useful for establishing what historical antecedents might exist to provide a springboard for contemporaneous data gathering. In most cases, existing documents are also extremely pertinent for understanding the policy context.

In a national policy case study I conducted on a major curriculum change, the importance of preexisting documentation was brought home to me sharply when certain documentation initially proved elusive to obtain. It was difficult to believe that it did not exist, as the evolution of the innovation involved several parties who had not worked together before. There was bound, I thought, to be minuted meetings sharing progress and documentation of the “new” curriculum. In the absence of some crucial documents, I began to piece together the story through interviewing. Only there were gaps, and certain issues did not make sense.

It was only when I presented two versions of what I discerned had transpired in the development of this initiative in an interim report eighteen months into the study that things started to change. Subsequent to the meeting at which the report was presented, the “missing” documents started to appear. Suddenly found. What lay behind the “missing documents,” something I suspected from what certain individuals did and did not say in interview, was a major difference of view about how the innovation evolved, who was key in the process, and whose voice was more important in the context. Political differences, in other words, that some stakeholders were trying to keep from me. The emergence of the documents enabled me to finally produce an accurate and fair account.

This is an example of the importance of having access to all relevant documents relating to a program or policy in order to study it fairly. The other major way in which document analysis is useful in case study is for understanding the values, explicit and hidden, in policy and program documents and in the organization where the program or policy is implemented. Not to be ignored as documents are photographs, and these, too, can form the basis of a cultural and value analysis of an organization ( Prosser, 2000 ).

Creative artistic approaches

Increasingly, some case study researchers are employing creative approaches associated with the arts as a means of data gathering and analysis. Artistic approaches have often been used in representing findings, but less frequently in data gathering and interpretation ( Simons & McCormack, 2007 ). A major exception is the work of Richardson (1994) , who sees the very process of writing as an interpretative act, and of Cancienne and Snowber (2003) , who argue for movement as method.

The most familiar of these creative and artistic forms are written—narratives and short stories ( Clandinin & Connelly, 2000 ; Richardson, 1994 ; Sparkes, 2002 ), poems or poetic form ( Butler-Kisber, 2010 ; Duke, 2007 ; Richardson, 1997 ; Sparkes & Douglas, 2007 ), cameos of people, or vignettes of situations. These can be written by participants or by the researcher or developed in partnership. They can also be shared with participants to further interpret the data. But photographs also have a long history in qualitative research for presenting and constructing understanding ( Butler-Kisber, 2010 ; Collier, 1967 ; Prosser, 2000 ; Rugang, 2006 ; Walker, 1993 ).

Less common are other visual forms of gathering data, such as “draw and write” ( Sewell, 2011 ), artefacts, drawings, sketches, paintings, and collages, although all forms are now on the increase. For examples of the use of collage in data gathering, see Duke (2007) and Butler-Kisber (2010) , and for charcoal drawing, Elliott (2008) .

In qualitative inquiry broadly, these creative approaches are now quite common. And in the context of arts and health in particular (see, for example, Frank, 1997 ; Liamputtong & Rumbold, 2008 ; Spouse, 2000 ), we can see how artistic approaches illuminate in-depth understanding. However, in case study research to date, I think narrative forms have tended to be most prominent.

Finally, for capturing the quality and essence of peoples’ experience, nothing could be more revealing than a recording of their voices. Video diaries—self-evaluative portrayals by individuals of their perspectives, feelings, or experience of an event or situation—are a most potent way both of gaining understanding and communicating that to others. It is rather more difficult to gain access for observational videos, but they are useful for documentation and have the potential to engage participants and stakeholders in the interpretation.

Getting It All Together

Case study is so often associated with story or with a report of some event or program that it is easy to forget that much analysis and interpretation has gone on before we reach this point. In many case study reports, this process is hidden, leaving the reader with little evidence on which to assess the validity of the findings and having to trust the one who wrote the tale.

This section briefly outlines possibilities, first, for analyzing and interpreting data, and second, for how to communicate the findings to others. However it is useful to think of these together and indeed, at the start, because decisions about how you report may influence how you choose to make sense of the data. Your choice may also vary according to the context of the study—what is expected or acceptable—and your personal predilections, whether you prefer a more rational than intuitive mode of analysis, for example, or a formal or informal style of writing up that includes images, metaphor, narratives, or poetic forms.

Analyzing and Interpreting Data

When it comes to making sense of data, I make a distinction between analysis—a formal inductive process that seeks to explain—and interpretation, a more intuitive process that gains understanding and insight from a holistic grasp of data, although these may interact and overlap at different stages.

The process, whichever emphasis you choose, is one of reducing or transforming a large amount of data to themes that can encapsulate the overarching meaning in the data. This involves sorting, refining, and refocusing data until they make sense. It starts at the beginning with preliminary hunches, sometimes called “interpretative asides” or “working hypotheses,” later moving to themes, analytic propositions, or a theory of the case.

There are many ways to conduct this process. Two strategies often employed are concept mapping —a means of representing data visually to explore links between related concepts—and progressive focusing ( Parlett & Hamilton, 1976 ), the gradual reframing of initially identified issues into themes that are then further interpreted to generate findings. Each of these strategies tends to have three stages: initial sense making, identification of themes, and examination of patterns and relationships between them.

If taking a formal analytic approach to the task, the data would likely be broken down into segments or datasets (coded and categorized) and then reordered and explored for themes, patterns, and possible propositions. If adopting a more intuitive process, you might focus on identifying insights through metaphors and images, lateral thinking, or puzzling over paradoxes and ambiguities in the data, after first immersing yourself in the total dataset, reading and re-reading interview scripts, observations and field notes to get a sense of the whole. Trying out different forms of making sense through poetry, vignettes, cameos, narratives, collages, and drawing are further creative ways to interpret data, as are photographs taken in the case arranged to explain or tell the story of the case.

Reporting Case Study Research

Narrative structure and story.

As indicated in the introduction, telling a story is often associated with case study and some think this is what a case study is. In one sense, it is and, given that story is the natural way in which we learn ( Okri, 1997 ), it is a useful framework both for gathering data and for communicating case study findings. Not any story will do however. To count as research, it must be authentic, grounded in data, interpreted and analyzed to convey the meaning of the case.

There are several senses in which story is appropriate in qualitative case study: in capturing stories participants tell, in generating a narrative structure that makes sense of the case (i.e., the story you will tell), and in deciding how you communicate this narrative (i.e., in story form). If you choose a written story form (and advice here can be sought from Harrington (2003) and Caulley (2008) ), it needs to be clearly structured, well written, and contain only the detail that is necessary to give readers the vicarious experience of what it was like in the case. If the story is to be communicated in other ways, through, for example, audio or videotape, or computer or personal interaction, the same applies, substituting visual and interpersonal skill for written.

Matching forms of reporting to audience

The art of reporting is strongly connected to usability, so forms of reporting need to connect to the audiences we hope to inform: how they learn, what kind of evidence they value, and what kind of reporting maximizes the chances they will use the findings to promote policies and programs in the interests of beneficiaries. As Okri (1997) further reminds us, the writer only does half the work; the reader does the other (p. 41).

There may be other considerations as well: how open are commissioners to receiving stories of difficulties, as well as success stories? What might they need to hear beyond what is sought in the technical brief? And through what style of reporting would you try and persuade them? If conducting noncommissioned case study research, the scope for different forms of reporting is wider. In academia, for instance, many institutions these days accept creative and artistic forms of reporting when supported by supervisors and appreciated by examiners.

Styles of Reporting

The most obvious form of reporting is linear, often starting with a short executive summary and a brief description of focus and context, followed by methodology, the case study or thematic analysis, findings, and conclusions or implications. Conclusion-led reporting is similar in terms of its formality, but simply starts the other way around. From the conclusions drawn from the analyzed data, it works backward to tell the story through narrative, verbatim, and observational data of how these conclusions were reached. Both have a strong story line. The intent is analytic and explanatory.

Quite a different approach is to engage the reader in the experience and veracity of the case. Rather like constructing a portrait or editing a documentary film, this involves the sifting, constructing, re-ordering of frames, events and episodes to tell a coherent story primarily through interview excerpts, observations, vignettes, and critical incidents that depict what transpired in the case. Interpretation is indirect through the weaving of the data. The story can start at any point provided the underlying narrative structure is maintained to establish coherence ( House, 1980 , p. 116).

Different again, and from the other end of a continuum, is a highly interpretative account that may use similar ways of presenting data but weaves a story from the outset that is highly interpretative. Engaging metaphor, images, short stories, contradictions, paradoxes, and puzzles, it is invariably interesting to read and can be most persuasive. However, the evidence is less visible and therefore less open to alternative interpretations.

Even more persuasive is a case study that uses artistic forms to communicate the story of the case. Paintings, poetic form, drawings, photography, collage, and movement can all be adopted to report findings, whether the data was acquired using these forms or by other means. The arts-based inquiry movement ( Mullen & Finley, 2003 ) has contributed hugely to the validation and legitimation of artistic and creative ways of representing qualitative research findings. The journal Qualitative Inquiry contains many good examples, but see also Liamputtong & Rumbold (2008) . Such artistic forms of representation may not be for everyone or appropriate in some contexts, but they do have the power to engage an audience and the potential to facilitate use.

Generalization in Case Study Research

One of the potential limitations of case study often proposed is that it is impossible to generalize. This is not so. However, the way in which one generalizes from a case is different from that adopted in traditional forms of social science research that utilize large samples (randomly selected) and statistical procedures and which assume regularities in the social world that allow cause and effect to be determined. In this form of research inferences from data are stated as formal propositions that apply to all in the target population. See Donmoyer (1990) for an argument on the restricted nature of this form of generalization when considering single-case studies.

Making inferences from cases with a qualitative data set arises more from a process of interpretation in context, appealing to tacit and situated understanding for acceptance of their validity. Such inferences are possible where the context and experience of the case is richly described so the reader can recognize and connect with the events and experiences portrayed. There are two ways to examine how to reach these generalized understandings. One is to generalize from the case to other cases of a similar or dissimilar nature. The other is to see what we learn in-depth from the uniqueness of the single case itself.

Generalizing from the Single Case

A common approach to generalization and one most akin to a propositional form is cross-case generalization. In a collective or multi-site case study, each case is explored to see if issues that arise in one case also exist in other cases and what interconnecting themes there are between them. This kind of generalization has a degree of abstraction and potential for theorizing and is often welcomed by commissioners of research concerned that findings from the single case do not provide an adequate or “safe” basis for policy determination.

However, there are four additional ways to generalize from the single case, all of which draw more on tacit knowledge and recognition of context, although in different ways. In naturalistic generalization , first proposed by Stake (1978) , generalization is reached on the basis of recognition of similarities and differences to cases with which we are familiar. To enable such recognition, the case needs to feature rich description; people’s voices; and enough detail of time, place, and context to provide a vicarious experience to help readers discern what is similar and dissimilar to their own context ( Stake, 1978 ).

Situated generalization ( Simons, Kushner, Jones, & James, 2003 ) is close to the concept of naturalistic generalization in relying for its generality on retaining a connectedness with the context in which it first evolved. However, it has an extra dimension in a practice context. This notion of generalization was identified in an evaluation of a research project that engaged teachers in and with research. Here, in addition to the usual validity criteria to establish the warrant for the findings, the generalization was seen as dependable if trust existed between those who conducted the research (teachers, in this example) and those thinking about using it (other teachers). In other words, beyond the technical validity of the research, teachers considered using the findings in their own practice because they had confidence in those who generated them. This is a useful way to think about generalization if we wish research findings to improve professional practice.

The next two concepts of generalization— concept and process generalization —relate more to what you discover in making sense of the case. As you interpret and analyze, you begin to generate a theory of the case that makes sense of the whole. Concepts may be identified that make sense in the one case but have equal significance in other cases of a similar kind, even if the contexts are different.

It is the concept that generalizes, not the specific content or context. This may be similar to the process Donmoyer (2008) identifies of “intellectual generalization” (quoted by Butler-Kisber, 2010 , p. 15) to indicate the cognitive understanding one can gain from qualitative accounts even if settings are quite different.

The same is true for generalization of a process. It is possible to identify a significant process in one case (or several cases) that is transferable to other contexts, irrespective of the precise content and contexts of those other cases. An example here is the collaborative model for sustainable school self-evaluation I identified in researching school self-evaluation in a number of schools and countries ( Simons, 2002 ). Schools that successfully sustained school self-evaluation had an infrastructure that was collaborative at all stages of the evaluation process from design to conduct of the study, to analyzing the results and to reporting the findings. This ensured that the whole school was involved and that results were discussed and built into the ongoing development of school policies and practice. In other cases, different processes may be discovered that have applicability in a range of contexts. As with concept generalization, it is the process that generalizes not the substantive content or specific context.

Particularization

The forms of generalization discussed above are useful when we have to justify case study in a research or policy context. But the overarching justification for how we learn from case study is particularization —a rich portrayal of insights and understandings interpreted in the particular context. Several authors have made this point ( Stake, 1995 ; Flyvberg, 2006 ; Simons 2009 ). Stake puts it most sharply when he observes that “The real business of case study is particularization, not generalization” (p. 8), referring here to the main reason for studying the singular, which is to understand the uniqueness of the case itself.

My perspective (explored further in Simons, 1996 ; Simons, 2009 , p. 239; Simons & McCormack, 2007 ) is similar in that I believe the “real” strength of case study lies in the insights we gain from in-depth study of the particular. But I also argue for the universality of such insights—if we get it “right.” By which I mean that if we are able to capture and report the uniqueness, the essence, of the case in all its particularity and present this in a way we can all recognize, we will discover something of universal significance. This is something of a paradox. The more you learn in depth about the particularity of one person, situation, or context, the more likely you are to discover something universal. This process of reaching understanding has support both from the way in which many discoveries are made in science and in how we learn from artists, poets, and novelists, who reach us by communicating a recognizable truth about individuals, human relationships, and/or social contexts.

This concept of particularization is far from new, as the quotation from a preface to a book written in 1908 attests. Stephen Reynolds, the author of A Poor Man’s House , notes that the substance of the book was first recorded in a journal, kept for purposes of fiction, and in letters to one of his friends, but fiction proved an inappropriate medium. He felt that the life and the people were so much better than anything he could invent. The book therefore consists of the journal and letters drawn together to present a picture of a typical poor man’s house and life, much as we might draw together a range of data to present a case study. It is not the substance of the book that concerns us here but the methodological relevance to case study research. Reynolds notes that the conclusions expressed are tentative and possibly go beyond this man’s life, so he thought some explanation of the way he arrived at them was needed:

Educated people usually deal with the poor man’s life deductively; they reason from the general to the particular; and, starting with a theory, religious, philanthropic, political, or what not, they seek, and too easily find, among the millions of poor, specimens—very frequently abnormal—to illustrate their theories. With anything but human beings, that is an excellent method. Human beings, unfortunately, have individualities. They do what, theoretically, they ought not to do, and leave undone those things they ought to do. They are even said to possess souls—untrustworthy things beyond the reach of sociologists. The inductive method—reasoning from the particular to the general... should at least help to counterbalance the psychological superficiality of the deductive method. ( Reynolds, 1908 : preface) 1

Slightly overstated perhaps, but the point is well made. In our search for general laws, we not only lose sight of the uniqueness and humanity of individuals, but reduce them in the process, failing to present their experience in any “real” sense. What is astonishing about the quotation is that it was written over a century ago and yet many still argue today that you cannot generalize from the particular.

Going even further back, in 1798, Blake proclaimed that “To Generalize is to be an Idiot. To Particularize is the Alone Distinction of Merit.” In research, we may not wish to make such a strong distinction: these processes both have their uses in different kinds of research. But there is a major point here for the study of the particular that Wilson (2008) notes in commenting on Blake’s perception when he says: “Favouring the abstract over the concrete, one ‘sees all things only thro’ the narrow chinks of his cavern”’ (referring here to Blake’s The Marriage of Heaven and Hell [1793]; in Wilson, 2008 , p. 62). The danger Wilson is pointing to here is that abstraction relies heavily on what we know from our past understanding of things, and this may prevent us experiencing a concrete event directly or “apprehend[ing] a particular moment” ( Wilson, 2008 , p. 63).

Blake had a different mission, of course, than case researchers, and he was not himself free from abstractions, as Wilson points out, although he fought hard “to break through mental barriers to something unique and living” ( Wilson, 2008 , p. 65). It is this search for the “unique and living” and experiencing the “isness” of the particular that we should take from the Blake example to remind ourselves of the possibility of discovering something “new,” beyond our current understanding of the way things are.

Focusing on particularization does not diminish the usefulness of case study research for policy makers or practitioners. Grounded in recognizable experience, the potential is there to reach a range of audiences and to facilitate use of the findings. It may be more difficult for those who seek formal generalizations that seem to offer a safe basis for policy making to accept case study reports. However, particular stories often hold the key to why policies have or have not worked well in the past. It is not necessary to present long cases—a criticism frequently levelled—to demonstrate the story of the case. Such case stories can be most insightful for policy makers who, like many of us in everyday life, often draw inferences from a single instance or case, whatever the formal evidence presented. “I am reminded of the story of....”

The case for studying the particular to inform practice in professional contexts needs less persuasion because practitioners can recognize the content and context quite readily and make the inference to their own particular context ( Simons et al., 2003 ). In both sets of circumstances—policy and practice—it is more a question of whether the readers of our case research accept the validity of findings determined in this way, how they choose to learn, and our skill in telling the case study story.

Conclusion and Future Directions

In this chapter, I have presented an argument for case study research, making the case, in particular, for using qualitative methods to highlight what it is that qualitative case study research can bring to the study of social and educational programs. I outlined the various ways in which case study is commonly used before focusing directly on case study as a major mode of research inquiry, noting characteristics it shares with other qualitative methodologies, as well as itsdifference and the difficulties it is sometimes perceived to have. The chapter emphasizes the importance of thinking through what the case is, to be sure that the issues explored and the data generated do illuminate this case and not any other.

But there is still more to be done. In particular, I think we need to be more adventurous in how we craft and report the case. I suspect we may have been too cautious in the past in how we justified case study research, borrowing concepts from other disciplines and forms of educational research. More than 40 years on, it is time to take a greater risk—in demonstrating the intrinsic nature of case study and what it can offer to our understanding of human and social situations.

I have already drawn attention to the need to design the case, although this could be developed further to accentuate the uniqueness of the particular case. One way to do this is to feature individuals more in the design itself, not only to explore programs and policies through perspectives of key actors or groups and transactions between them, which to some extent happens already, but also to get them to characterize what makes the context unique. This is the reversal of many a design framework that starts with the logic of a program and takes forward the argument for personal evaluation ( Kushner, 2000 ), noted in the interlude on evaluation. Apart from this attention to design, there are three other issues I think we need to explore further: the warrant for creative methods in case study, more imaginative reporting; and how we learn from a study of the singular.

Warrant for More Creative Methods in Case Study Research

The promise that creative methods have for eliciting in-depth understanding and capturing the unusual, the idiosyncratic, the uniqueness of the case, was mentioned in the methods section. Yet, in case study research, particularly in program and policy contexts, we have few good examples of the use of artistic approaches for eliciting and interpreting data, although more, as acknowledged later, for presenting it. This may be because case study research is often conducted in academic or policy environments, where propositional ways of knowing are more valued.

Using creative and artistic forms in generating and interpreting case study data offers a form of evidence that acknowledges experiential understanding in illuminating the uniqueness of the case. The question is how to establish the warrant for this way of knowing and persuade others of its virtue. The answer is simple. By demonstrating the use of these methods in action, by arguing for a different form of validity that matches the intrinsic nature of the method, and, above all, by good examples.

Representing Findings to Engage Audiences in Learning

In evaluative and research policy contexts, where case study is often the main mode of inquiry or part of a broader study, case study reports often take a formal structure or sometimes, where the context is receptive, a portrayal or interpretative form. But, too often, the qualitative is an add-on to a story told by other means or reduced to issues in which the people who gave rise to the data are no longer seen. However, there are many ways to put them center stage.

Tell good stories and tell them well. Or, let key actors tell their own stories. Explore the different ways technology can help. Make video clips that demonstrate events in context, illustrate interactions between people, give voice to participants—show the reality of the program, in other words. Use graphics to summarize key issues and interactive, cartoon technology, as seen on some TED presentations, to summarize and visually show the complexity of the case. Video diaries were mentioned in the methods section: seeing individuals tell their tales directly is a powerful way of communicating, unhindered by “our” sense making. Tell photo stories. Let the photos convey the narrative, but make sure the structure of the narrative is evident to ensure coherence. These are just the beginnings. Those skilled in information technology could no doubt stretch our imagination further.

One problem and a further question concerns our audiences. Will they accept these modes of communication? Maybe not, in some contexts. However, there are three points I wish to leave you with. First, do not presume that they won’t. If people are fully present in the story and the complexity is not diminished, those reading, watching, or hearing about the case will get the message. If you are worried about how commissioners might respond, remember that they are no different from any other stakeholder or participant when it comes to how they learn from human experience. Witness the reference to Okri (1997) earlier about how we learn.

Second, when you detect that the context requires a more formal presentation of findings, respond according to expectation but also include elements of other forms of presentation. Nudge a little in the direction of creativity. Third, simply take a chance, that risk I spoke about earlier. Challenge the status quo. Find situations and contexts where you can fully represent the qualitative nature of the experience in the cases you study with creative forms of interpretation and representation. And let the audience decide.

Learning from a Study of the Singular

Finally, to return to the issue of “generalization” in case study that worries some audiences. I pointed out in the generalization section several ways in which it is possible to generalize from case study research, not in a formal propositional sense or from a case to a population, but by retaining a connection with the context in which the generalization first arose—that is, to realize in-depth understanding in context in different circumstances and situations. However, I also emphasized that, in many instances, it is particularization from which we learn. That is the point of the singular case study, and it is an art to perceive and craft the case in ways that we can.

Acknowledgments

Parts of this chapter build on ideas first explored in Simons, 2009 .

I am grateful to Bob Williams for pointing out the relevance of this quotation from Reynolds to remind us that “there is nothing new under the sun” and that we sometimes continue to engage endlessly in debates that have been well rehearsed before.

Adams, T. ( 2012 ) ‘ Olympics 2012: Team GB falters but London shines bright on opening day ’, Observer, 29.07.12.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Bassey, M. ( 1999 ). Case study research in educational settings . Buckingham: Open University Press.

Bellah, R. N. , Madsen, R. , Sullivan, W. M. , Swidler, A. , & Tipton, S. M. ( 1985 ). Habits of the heart . London: Harper and Row.

Blake, W. (1798– 1809 ). Annotations to Sir Joshua Reynolds’s Discourses , pp. xvii–xcviii (c. 1798–1809) repr. In Complete Writings , ed.   Geoffrey Keynes   (1957). ‘Discourse II,’ annotations to Sir Joshua Reynolds, Discourses (c. 1808) .

Butler-Kisber, L. ( 2010 ). Qualitative inquiry: Thematic, narrative and arts-informed perspectives . London: Sage.

Cancienne, M. B. , & Snowber, C. N. ( 2003 ). Writing rhythm: Movement as method.   Qualitative Inquiry , 9 (2), 237–253.

Caulley, D. N. ( 2008 ). Making qualitative research reports less boring: The techniques of writing creative nonfiction.   Qualitative Inquiry , 14 (3) pp. 424–449.

Chadderton, C. , & Torrance, H. ( 2011 ). Case study. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Theory and methods in social research . (2nd ed. pp 53–60). London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clandinin, D. J. & Connelly, F. M. ( 2000 ) Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. Ist edn. SanFrancisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Collier, J., Jr. ( 1967 ). Visual anthropology: Photography as a research method . New York: Holt, Reinhart, & Winston.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) ( 1994 ) Handbook of Qualitative Research , London and Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage

Donmoyer, R. ( 1990 ). Generalization and the single case study. In E. W. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education (pp. 175–200). New York: Teachers College Press.

Donmoyer, R. ( 2008 ). Generalizability. In L. M. Givens (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative inquiry (vol. 2, pp. 371–372). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Duke, S. (2007). A narrative case study evaluation of the role of the Nurse Consultant in palliative care. PhD thesis, University of Southampton, England.

Elliott, J. (2008). Dance mirrors: Embodying, actualizing and operationalizing a dance experience in a healthcare context. PhD thesis, University of Ulster, Belfast.

Frank. A. ( 1997 ). Enacting illness stories: When, what, why. In H. L. Nelson (Ed.), Stories and their limits (pp. 31–49). London: Routledge.

Flyvberg, B. ( 2006 ). Five misunderstandings about case-study research.   Qualitative Inquiry , 12 (2), 219–245.

Gomm, R. , Hammersley, M. , & Foster, P. (Eds.). ( 2004 ). Case study method: Key issues, key texts . [First published in 2000]. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Greene, J. C. ( 2000 ). Understanding social programs through evaluation. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 981–999). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Greene, J. C. ( 2007 ). Mixing methods in social inquiry . San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Greenhalgh, T. , & Worrall, J. G. ( 1997 ). From EBM to CSM: The evolution of context-sensitive medicine.   Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice , 3 (2), 105–108.

Harrington, W. ( 2003 ). What journalism can offer ethnography.   Qualitative Inquiry . 9 (1), 90–114.

Heron, J. ( 1992 ). Feeling and personhood . Sage: London.

Heron, J. ( 1999 ). The complete facilitator’s handbook . London: Kogan Page.

House, E. R. ( 1980 ). Evaluating with validity . London, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

House, E. R. ( 1993 ). Professional evaluation: Social impact and political consequences . Newbury Park and London: Sage

Kushner, S. ( 2000 ). Personalizing evaluation . London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Liamputtong, P. , & Rumbold, J. (Eds.). ( 2008 ). Knowing differently: Arts-based and collaborative research methods . New York: Nova Science Publishers.

MacDonald, B. ( 1976 ). Evaluation and the control of education. In D. Tawney (Ed.), Curriculum evaluation today: Trends and implications . Schools Council Research Studies (pp. 125– 136). London: Macmillan.

Matarasso, F. ( 2012 ). West Bromwich Operatic Society: fine art of musical theatre . West Bromwich, UK: Multistory.

Merriam, S. B. ( 1988 ). Case study research in education: A qualitative Approach . San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Mullen, C. A. , & Finley, S. (Eds.). ( 2003 ). Arts-based approaches to qualitative inquiry [Special Issue].   Qualitative Inquiry , 9 (2), 165–329.

Okri, B. ( 1997 ). A way of being free . London: Phoenix.

Parlett, M. , & Hamilton, D. ( 1976 ). Evaluation as illumination: A new approach to the study of innovatory programmes. In G. Glass (Ed.), Evaluation studies review annual, I (pp. 140–157). [First published in 1972 as Occasional Paper 9, Centre for Research in the Educational Sciences, University of Edinburgh.] Beverly Hills: CA: Sage.

Platt, J. ( 2007 ). Case study. In W. Outhwaite & S. P. Turner (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social science methodology (pp. 100–118). London: Sage.

Prosser, J. ( 2000 ). The moral maze of image ethics. In H. Simons & R. Usher (Eds.), Situated ethics in educational research (pp. 116–132). London and New York: Routledge/Falmer.

Ragin, C. C. ( 1992 ). Cases of “What is a case?” In C. C. Ragin & H. S. Becker (Eds.), What is a case?: Exploring the foundations of social inquiry (pp. 1–17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reynolds, S. S. (1908). A Poor Man’s House . The Project Guttenberg eBook, July 25, 2008 [eBook#26126]. Accessed February 26, 2013, http.//www.gutenberg.org

Richardson, L. ( 1994 ). Writing as a form of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 516–529). London: Sage.

Richardson, L. ( 1997 ). Fields of play (Constructing an academic life) . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Rugang, L. (2006). Chinese culture in globalisation: A multi-modal case study on visual discourse. PhD thesis, University of Southampton, England.

Seale, C. ( 1999 ). The quality of qualitative research . London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sewell, K. ( 2011 ). Researching sensitive issues: A critical appraisal of “draw and write” as a data collection technique in eliciting children’s perceptions.   International Journal of Research Methods in Education 34(2), pp.175–191.

Shaw, I. , & Gould, N. ( 2001 ). Qualitative research in social work: Context and method . London: Sage.

Silverman, D. ( 2000 ). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook . London and Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.

Silverman, D. (Ed.). ( 2004 ). Qualitative research: Theory, methods and practice (2nd ed.). London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Simons, H. ( 1971 ). Innovation and the case study of schools.   Cambridge Journal of Education , 3 , 118–123.

Simons, H. (Ed.). ( 1980 ). Towards a science of the singular: Essays about case study in educational research and evaluation . Occasional Papers No. 10. Norwich, UK: Centre for Applied Research, University of East Anglia.

Simons, H. ( 1987 ). Getting to know schools in a democracy: The politics and process of evaluation . Lewes, UK: Falmer Press.

Simons, H. ( 1996 ). The paradox of case study.   Cambridge Journal of Education , 26 (2), 225–240.

Simons, H. ( 2000 ). Damned if you do, damned if you don’t: ethical and political dilemmas in evaluation. In H. Simons & R. Usher (Eds.) Situated ethics in educational research (pp.39– 55) London and New York: Routledge/Falmer.

Simons, H. ( 2002 ). School self-evaluation in a democracy. In D. Nevo (Ed.), School-based evaluation: An international perspective . Advances in Program Evaluation. London: Sage.

Simons, H. ( 2006 ). Ethics and evaluation. In I. F. Shaw , J. C. Greene , & M. M. Mark (Eds.), The international handbook of evaluation (pp. 243–265). London and Thousand Oaks, CA Sage.

Simons, H. ( 2009 ). Case study research in practice . London: Sage.

Simons, H. (2010). Democratic evaluation: Theory and practice. Paper prepared for Virtual Evaluation Conference, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, May, 2010.

Simons, H. , Kushner, S. , Jones, K. , & James, D. ( 2003 ). From evidence-based practice to practice-based evidence: The idea of situated generalization.   Research Papers in Education: Policy and Practice , 18 (4), 347–364.

Simons, H. , & McCormack, B. ( 2007 ). Integrating arts-based inquiry in evaluation methodology.   Qualitative Inquiry , 13 (2) 292–311.

Simons, H. , & Usher, R. (Eds.). ( 2000 ). Situated ethics in educational research . London and New York: Routledge/Falmer.

Smith, L. M. , & Pohland, P. A. ( 1974 ). Education, technology, and the rural highlands. In R. H. P. Kraft ., L. M. Smith ., P. A. Pohland ., C. J. Brauner , & C. Gjerde (Eds.), Four evaluation examples: Anthropological, economic, narrative and portrayal (pp. 5–54), AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation 7. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Sparkes, A. ( 2002 ). Telling tales in sport and physical activity: A qualitative journey . Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Press.

Sparkes, A. C. , & Douglas, K. ( 2007 ). Making the case for poetic representations: An example in action.   The Sport Psychologist , 21(2) , 170–190.

Spouse, J. ( 2000 ). Talking pictures: Investigating personal knowledge though illuminating artwork.   Nursing Times Research Journal , 5 (4), 253–261.

Stake, R. E. ( 1978 ) The case study method in social inquiry.   Educational Researcher , 7(2), 5–9.

Stake, R. E. ( 1995 ). The art of case study research . Thousand Oaks, CA and London: Sage.

Stake, R. E. ( 2010 ). Qualitative research: Studying how things work . New York & London: Guildford Press.

Stenhouse, L. ( 1978 ). Case study and case records: Towards a contemporary history of education.   British Educational Research Journal , 4 (2), 21–39.

Thomas, G. ( 2011 b)). A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition, discourse and structure.   Qualitative Inquiry , 17 (6) , 511–521.

Thomas, G. ( 2011 a). How to do your case study: A guide for students and researchers . London: Sage.

Walker, R. ( 1993 ). Finding a silent voice for the researcher: Using photographs in evaluation and research. In M. Schratz (Ed.), Qualitative voices in educational research (pp. 72–92). Lewes, UK: Falmer Press.

Wilson, E. G. ( 2008 ). Against happiness . New York: Sarah Crichton Books.

Yin, R. K. ( 2004 ). Case study research: Design and methods . Thousand Oaks, CA and London: Sage.

Zucker, D. M. ( 2001 ). Using case study methodology in nursing research.   Qualitative Report , 6 (2) June.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Human-generated content, empowered by AI.

FREE eBook: Establish Authorship & Build Authority Online

When and How to Use a Case Study for Research

May 17, 2021 (Updated: May 4, 2023)

Quick Navigation

What Is Case Study Research?

Types of case studies, when should you use a case study, case study benefits, case study limitations, how to write a case study.

Imagine your company receives a string of negative reviews online. You notice a few common themes among the complaints, but you still aren’t quite sure what went wrong. Or suppose an old blog post suddenly went viral, and you’d like to know why and how to do it again. In both of these situations, a case study could be the best way to find answers.

A case study is a process whereby researchers examine a specific subject in a thorough, detailed way. The subject of a case study could be an individual, a group, a community, a business, an organization, an event, or a phenomenon. Regardless of the type of subject, case studies are in-depth investigations designed to identify patterns and cause-and-effect relationships. Case studies are often used by researchers in the field of psychology , medicine, business, social work, anthropology, education, or political science.

Because they are singular in their focus and often rely on qualitative data, case studies tend to be highly subjective. The results of a single case study cannot always be generalized and applied to the larger population. However, case studies can be valuable tools for developing a thesis or illustrating a principle. They can help researchers understand, describe, compare, and evaluate different aspects of an issue or question.

Image via Flickr by plings

Case studies can be classified according to their purpose or their subject. For instance, a case study can focus on any of the following:

• A person:  Some case studies focus on one particular person. Often, the subject will be an individual with some rare characteristic or experience.
• A group:  Group case studies could look at a family, a group of coworkers, or a friend group. It could be people thrown together by circumstance or who share some bond or relationship. A group case study could even focus on an entire community of people.
• An organization:  An organizational case study could focus on a business, a nonprofit, an institution, or any other formal entity. The study could look at the people in the organization, the processes they use, or an incident at the organization.
• A location:  An event case study focuses on a specific area. It could be used to study environmental and population changes or to examine how people use the location.
• An event:  Event case studies can be used to cover anything from a natural disaster to a political scandal. Often, these case studies are conducted retrospectively, as an investigation into a past event.

In addition to different types of subjects, case studies often have different designs or purposes. Here are a few of the most common types of case studies:

• Explanatory:  An explanatory case study tries to explain the why or how behind something. This type of case study works well when studying an event or phenomenon, like an airplane crash or unexpected power outage.
• Descriptive:  A descriptive, or illustrative, case study is designed to shed light on an unfamiliar subject. Case studies like this provide in-depth, real-world examples of whatever the researcher wants to help the audience understand. For instance, a descriptive case study could focus on the experience of a mother with postpartum depression or on a young adult who has aged out of the foster care system.
• Exploratory:  An exploratory case study, or pilot case study, often serves as the first step in a larger research project. Researchers may use a case study to help them narrow their focus, draft a specific research question, and guide the parameters of a formal, large-scale study.
• Intrinsic:  An intrinsic case study has no goal beyond a deeper understanding of its subject. In this type of study, researchers are not trying to make generalized conclusions, challenge existing assumptions, or make any compare-and-contrast connections. The most interesting thing about the study is the subject itself.
• Critical Instance:  A critical instance case study is similar to an explanatory or intrinsic study. Like an intrinsic study, it may have no predetermined purpose beyond investigating the subject. Like an explanatory study, it may be used to explain a cause-and-effect relationship. A critical instance case study may also be used to call into question a commonly held assumption or popular theory.
• Instrumental:  An instrumental case study is the opposite of an intrinsic study because it serves a purpose beyond understanding the immediate subject. In this type of study, researchers explore a larger question through an individual case or cases. For instance, researchers could use a handful of case studies to investigate the relationship between social media use and happiness.
• Cumulative:  A cumulative, or collective, case study uses information from several past studies as the basis for a new study. Because it takes into account multiple case studies, a cumulative study allows for greater generalization than a single case study. It can also be a more time- and cost-effective option since it makes use of existing research.

Case studies are often used in the exploratory phase of research to gather qualitative data. They can also be used to create, support, or refute a hypothesis and guide future research. For instance, a marketing professional might conduct a case study to discover why a viral ad campaign was so successful . They can then take any lessons they glean from the case study and apply them to future marketing efforts. A psychologist could use a case study to form a theory about the best way to treat a specific disorder. That theory could then be tested later through a large-scale controlled study.

Case studies are a good way to explore a real-world topic in-depth, illustrate a point, discuss the implications or meaning of an event, or compare the experiences of different individuals. A trainer may use a case study to bring to life what would otherwise be an abstract series of recommended action steps or to spark a conversation about how to respond in a specific scenario. Similarly, professors can use case studies to highlight key concepts from a lecture and pose questions to test students’ understanding of the material.

In some situations, case studies are the only way to compile quantitative data in an ethical manner. For instance, many of the recommendations that doctors make regarding what is or is not safe during pregnancy are based on case studies. It wouldn’t be ethical to conduct a controlled study that exposes pregnant women to potentially harmful substances, so doctors rely on the anecdotal evidence provided by case studies to find correlations and draw their conclusions.

Case studies can also be used to gather data that would be otherwise impossible or impractical to obtain. Students often use case studies for their thesis or dissertation when they lack the time or resources to conduct large-scale research. Zoologists might use existing case studies to determine the success rate of reintroducing rehabilitated animals into the wild. A historian could use case studies to explore the strategies used by dictators to gain and maintain power.

Image via Flickr by calebmmartin

Case studies can be used on their own or as a complement to other research methods, depending on the situation. The examples above are just a few instances where case studies can be useful. Case studies also work well for the following:

Providing Insight Through Qualitative Data

Case studies generally provide more qualitative data as opposed to quantitative data , and that makes them an invaluable tool for gathering insight into complex topics. Psychologists, for instance, use case studies to better understand human behavior. Crafting theories on the motives behind human actions would be difficult with quantitative data alone. The information gleaned through case studies may be subjective, but so is much of what makes us human. As individuals, we each have a unique blend of emotions, attitudes, opinions, motivations, and behaviors. Objective quantitative data is rarely the best way to identify and explain these nuances.

By their very nature, case studies allow more more intensive, in-depth study than other research methods. Rather than aiming for a large sample size, case studies follow a single subject. Often case studies are conducted over a longer period of time, and the narrow focus allows researchers to gather more detail than would be possible in a study of thousands of people. The information gleaned may not be representative of the broader population, but it does provide richer insight into the subject than other research methods.

Identifying Avenues for Future Research

Case studies are often used as the first step in a larger research project. The results of a case study cannot necessarily be generalized, but they can help researchers narrow their focus. For instance, researchers in the medical field might conduct a case study on a patient who survived an injury that typically proves fatal.

Over the course of the study, researchers may identify two or three ways in which this patient’s situation differed from others they have seen. Perhaps they identify something unique in the patient’s DNA or lifestyle choices or in the steps doctors took to treat the injury. Letting that information guide them, researchers could use other methods to deepen their understanding of those factors and perhaps develop new treatments or preventative recommendations.

Case studies can also be used in the fields of social work, politics, and anthropology to draw attention to a widespread problem and spur more research. A detailed narrative about one person’s experience will inspire more compassion than an academic paper filled with quantitative data. Stories often have a greater impact than statistics.

Challenging, Testing, or Developing Theories

Case studies can be particularly useful in the process of forming and testing theories. A case study may lead researchers to form a new theory or call into a question an existing one. They are an invaluable tool for identifying exceptions to a rule or disproving conventional wisdom.

For instance, a medical professional may write a case study about a patient who exhibited atypical symptoms to assert that the list of symptoms for a condition should be expanded. A psychologist could use a case study to determine whether the new treatment they devised for depression is effective, or to demonstrate that existing treatment methods are flawed. As the result of a case study, a marketing professional could suggest that consumers values have changed and that marketing best practices should be updated accordingly.

Enabling the Study of Unique Subjects

Some subjects would be impossible, impractical, or unethical to study through other research methods. This is true in the case of extremely rare phenomenon, many aspects of human behavior, and even some medical conditions.

Suppose a medical professional would like to gather more information about multiple-birth pregnancies with four or more fetuses. More information would be helpful because we have less information about them, but the reason we have less information is because they are so rare. Conducting case studies of a few women who are currently pregnant with multiples or have given birth to multiples in the past may be the only practical way to research them.

Case studies can also be used to gain insight into historical events and natural phenomenon — things we are not able to repeat at will. Case studies have also been used to study subjects such as a feral child , child prodigies, rare psychological conditions, crisis response, and more.

Helping People Better Understand Nuanced Concepts

Educators incorporate case studies into their lectures for a reason. Walking students through a detailed case study can make the abstract seem more real and draw out the nuances of a concept. Case studies can facilitate engaging discussions, spark thoughtful questions, and give students a chance to apply what they have learned to real-world situations.

Outside the classroom, case studies can be used to illustrate complex ideas. For instance, a well-constructed case study can highlight the unintended consequences of a new piece of legislation or demonstrate that depression does not always manifest in an obvious way. Case studies can help readers and listeners understand and care about an issue that does not directly affect them.

Despite their benefits, case studies do come with a few limitations. Compared to other research methods, case studies are often at a disadvantage in terms of the following:

Replicability

In most cases, scientists strive to create experiments that can be repeated by others. That way, other scientists can perform their own research and compare their results to those of the initial study. Assuming these other scientists achieve similar results, the replicability of the experiment lends credibility to the findings and theories of the original researchers.

One limitation of case studies is that they are often difficult, if not impossible, to replicate. Although this fact does not diminish the value of case studies, it does demonstrate that case studies are not a good fit for every research problem — at least, not on their own. Additional research would have to be performed to corroborate the results and prove or disprove any generalized theories generated by a case study.

Generalization

Generalization is another area in which case studies cannot match other research methods. A case study can help us challenge existing theories and form new ones, but its results cannot necessarily be generalized. The data we gather from a case study is only valid for that specific subject, and we cannot assume that our conclusions apply to the broader population.

Researchers or readers can attempt to apply the principles from a particular case to similar situations or incorporate the results into a more comprehensive theory. However, a case study by itself can only prove the existence of certain possibilities and exceptions, not a general rule.

Reliability

The reliability of case studies may be called into question for two reasons. The first objection centers on the fallibility of human memory and the question of whether subjects are being honest. Many case studies rely on subjects to self-report biographical details, their state of mind, their thoughts and feelings, or their behaviors.

The second issue is the Hawthorne effect, which refers to the tendency of individuals to modify their behavior when they know they are being observed. This effect makes it nearly impossible for researchers to ensure that the observations and conclusions of their case study are reliable.

Researcher Bias

Researcher bias is another potential issue with case studies. The results of a case study are by nature subjective and qualitative rather than objective and qualitative, and any findings rely heavily on the observations and narrative provided by the researcher. Even the best researchers are still human, and no matter how hard they try to remain objective, they will not be able to keep their findings completely free of bias.

Researchers may have biases they are not even aware of. A researcher may over-identify with the subject and lose the benefit of a dispassionate outside perspective. If the researcher already has an opinion on the subject, they may subconsciously overlook or discount facts that contradict their pre-existing assumptions. Researcher bias can affect what the researcher observes and records, as well as how they interpret and apply their observations.

Case studies can be time-consuming and expensive to conduct. Crafting a thorough case study can be a lengthy project due to the intensive, detailed nature of this type of research. Plus, once the information has been gathered, it must be interpreted. Between the observation and analysis, a case study could take months or even years to complete. Researchers will need to be heavily involved in every step of the process, putting in a lot of time, energy, focus, and effort to ensure that the case study is as informative as possible.

Now that you understand the benefits, limitations, and types of case studies, you can follow these steps to write your own:

• Determine your objective.  Write out your research problem, question, or goal. If you aren’t sure, ask yourself questions like, “What am I trying to accomplish? What do I need to know? What will success look like?” Be clear and specific. Your answers will help you choose the right type of case study for your needs.
• Review the research.  Before delving into your case study, take some time to review the research that is already available. The information you gather during this preliminary research can help guide your efforts.
• Choose a subject.  Decide what or who the subject of your case study will be. For instance, if you are conducting a case study to find out how businesses have been affected by new CDC guidelines, you will need to choose a specific restaurant or retailer. In some cases, you may need to draft a release form for the subject to sign so that you will be able to publish your study.
• Gather information.  Case studies about a person, organization, or group may rely on questionnaires or interviews to gather information. If you are studying an event, you might use a combination of academic research and witness interviews. In some cases, you will record your own observations as part of the study.
• Write a report.  Most case studies culminate in a written report, similar to a research paper. Most case studies include five sections : an introduction, a literature review, an explanation of your methods, a discussion of your findings and the implications, followed by a conclusion.
• Publish your findings.  Once you’ve written your case study, consider the most engaging way to present your findings. A well-written research article is a good place to start, but going a step further will maximize the impact of your research. For instance, you could design an infographic to highlight key findings or commission an animated video to turn your case study into a visual narrative.

Whether research is your primary occupation or only an incidental part of your job, you can benefit from a solid understanding of what case studies are, how they work, and when to use them. Use the information and steps above to design and write a case study that will provide the answers you’re looking for.

CopyPress writer

More from the author:

Quick Navigation What Does a Content Manager Do? Who Does a Content Manager Report To? Are Content Managers Paid...

In our digital age, it’s important to know the best ways to reach your target audience and boost your...

The best content marketing conferences offer the chance to learn more about the industry and provide networking opportunities with...

RECENT ARTICLES

Read More About Measurement

27 Nov 2023

31 Oct 2023

23 May 2023

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

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Sage Choice

Continuing to enhance the quality of case study methodology in health services research

Shannon l. sibbald.

1 Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

2 Department of Family Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

3 The Schulich Interfaculty Program in Public Health, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

Stefan Paciocco

Meghan fournie, rachelle van asseldonk, tiffany scurr.

Case study methodology has grown in popularity within Health Services Research (HSR). However, its use and merit as a methodology are frequently criticized due to its flexible approach and inconsistent application. Nevertheless, case study methodology is well suited to HSR because it can track and examine complex relationships, contexts, and systems as they evolve. Applied appropriately, it can help generate information on how multiple forms of knowledge come together to inform decision-making within healthcare contexts. In this article, we aim to demystify case study methodology by outlining its philosophical underpinnings and three foundational approaches. We provide literature-based guidance to decision-makers, policy-makers, and health leaders on how to engage in and critically appraise case study design. We advocate that researchers work in collaboration with health leaders to detail their research process with an aim of strengthening the validity and integrity of case study for its continued and advanced use in HSR.

Introduction

The popularity of case study research methodology in Health Services Research (HSR) has grown over the past 40 years. 1 This may be attributed to a shift towards the use of implementation research and a newfound appreciation of contextual factors affecting the uptake of evidence-based interventions within diverse settings. 2 Incorporating context-specific information on the delivery and implementation of programs can increase the likelihood of success. 3 , 4 Case study methodology is particularly well suited for implementation research in health services because it can provide insight into the nuances of diverse contexts. 5 , 6 In 1999, Yin 7 published a paper on how to enhance the quality of case study in HSR, which was foundational for the emergence of case study in this field. Yin 7 maintains case study is an appropriate methodology in HSR because health systems are constantly evolving, and the multiple affiliations and diverse motivations are difficult to track and understand with traditional linear methodologies.

Despite its increased popularity, there is debate whether a case study is a methodology (ie, a principle or process that guides research) or a method (ie, a tool to answer research questions). Some criticize case study for its high level of flexibility, perceiving it as less rigorous, and maintain that it generates inadequate results. 8 Others have noted issues with quality and consistency in how case studies are conducted and reported. 9 Reporting is often varied and inconsistent, using a mix of approaches such as case reports, case findings, and/or case study. Authors sometimes use incongruent methods of data collection and analysis or use the case study as a default when other methodologies do not fit. 9 , 10 Despite these criticisms, case study methodology is becoming more common as a viable approach for HSR. 11 An abundance of articles and textbooks are available to guide researchers through case study research, including field-specific resources for business, 12 , 13 nursing, 14 and family medicine. 15 However, there remains confusion and a lack of clarity on the key tenets of case study methodology.

Several common philosophical underpinnings have contributed to the development of case study research 1 which has led to different approaches to planning, data collection, and analysis. This presents challenges in assessing quality and rigour for researchers conducting case studies and stakeholders reading results.

This article discusses the various approaches and philosophical underpinnings to case study methodology. Our goal is to explain it in a way that provides guidance for decision-makers, policy-makers, and health leaders on how to understand, critically appraise, and engage in case study research and design, as such guidance is largely absent in the literature. This article is by no means exhaustive or authoritative. Instead, we aim to provide guidance and encourage dialogue around case study methodology, facilitating critical thinking around the variety of approaches and ways quality and rigour can be bolstered for its use within HSR.

Purpose of case study methodology

Case study methodology is often used to develop an in-depth, holistic understanding of a specific phenomenon within a specified context. 11 It focuses on studying one or multiple cases over time and uses an in-depth analysis of multiple information sources. 16 , 17 It is ideal for situations including, but not limited to, exploring under-researched and real-life phenomena, 18 especially when the contexts are complex and the researcher has little control over the phenomena. 19 , 20 Case studies can be useful when researchers want to understand how interventions are implemented in different contexts, and how context shapes the phenomenon of interest.

In addition to demonstrating coherency with the type of questions case study is suited to answer, there are four key tenets to case study methodologies: (1) be transparent in the paradigmatic and theoretical perspectives influencing study design; (2) clearly define the case and phenomenon of interest; (3) clearly define and justify the type of case study design; and (4) use multiple data collection sources and analysis methods to present the findings in ways that are consistent with the methodology and the study’s paradigmatic base. 9 , 16 The goal is to appropriately match the methods to empirical questions and issues and not to universally advocate any single approach for all problems. 21

Approaches to case study methodology

Three authors propose distinct foundational approaches to case study methodology positioned within different paradigms: Yin, 19 , 22 Stake, 5 , 23 and Merriam 24 , 25 ( Table 1 ). Yin is strongly post-positivist whereas Stake and Merriam are grounded in a constructivist paradigm. Researchers should locate their research within a paradigm that explains the philosophies guiding their research 26 and adhere to the underlying paradigmatic assumptions and key tenets of the appropriate author’s methodology. This will enhance the consistency and coherency of the methods and findings. However, researchers often do not report their paradigmatic position, nor do they adhere to one approach. 9 Although deliberately blending methodologies may be defensible and methodologically appropriate, more often it is done in an ad hoc and haphazard way, without consideration for limitations.

Cross-analysis of three case study approaches, adapted from Yazan 2015

The post-positive paradigm postulates there is one reality that can be objectively described and understood by “bracketing” oneself from the research to remove prejudice or bias. 27 Yin focuses on general explanation and prediction, emphasizing the formulation of propositions, akin to hypothesis testing. This approach is best suited for structured and objective data collection 9 , 11 and is often used for mixed-method studies.

Constructivism assumes that the phenomenon of interest is constructed and influenced by local contexts, including the interaction between researchers, individuals, and their environment. 27 It acknowledges multiple interpretations of reality 24 constructed within the context by the researcher and participants which are unlikely to be replicated, should either change. 5 , 20 Stake and Merriam’s constructivist approaches emphasize a story-like rendering of a problem and an iterative process of constructing the case study. 7 This stance values researcher reflexivity and transparency, 28 acknowledging how researchers’ experiences and disciplinary lenses influence their assumptions and beliefs about the nature of the phenomenon and development of the findings.

Defining a case

A key tenet of case study methodology often underemphasized in literature is the importance of defining the case and phenomenon. Researches should clearly describe the case with sufficient detail to allow readers to fully understand the setting and context and determine applicability. Trying to answer a question that is too broad often leads to an unclear definition of the case and phenomenon. 20 Cases should therefore be bound by time and place to ensure rigor and feasibility. 6

Yin 22 defines a case as “a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context,” (p13) which may contain a single unit of analysis, including individuals, programs, corporations, or clinics 29 (holistic), or be broken into sub-units of analysis, such as projects, meetings, roles, or locations within the case (embedded). 30 Merriam 24 and Stake 5 similarly define a case as a single unit studied within a bounded system. Stake 5 , 23 suggests bounding cases by contexts and experiences where the phenomenon of interest can be a program, process, or experience. However, the line between the case and phenomenon can become muddy. For guidance, Stake 5 , 23 describes the case as the noun or entity and the phenomenon of interest as the verb, functioning, or activity of the case.

Designing the case study approach

Yin’s approach to a case study is rooted in a formal proposition or theory which guides the case and is used to test the outcome. 1 Stake 5 advocates for a flexible design and explicitly states that data collection and analysis may commence at any point. Merriam’s 24 approach blends both Yin and Stake’s, allowing the necessary flexibility in data collection and analysis to meet the needs.

Yin 30 proposed three types of case study approaches—descriptive, explanatory, and exploratory. Each can be designed around single or multiple cases, creating six basic case study methodologies. Descriptive studies provide a rich description of the phenomenon within its context, which can be helpful in developing theories. To test a theory or determine cause and effect relationships, researchers can use an explanatory design. An exploratory model is typically used in the pilot-test phase to develop propositions (eg, Sibbald et al. 31 used this approach to explore interprofessional network complexity). Despite having distinct characteristics, the boundaries between case study types are flexible with significant overlap. 30 Each has five key components: (1) research question; (2) proposition; (3) unit of analysis; (4) logical linking that connects the theory with proposition; and (5) criteria for analyzing findings.

Contrary to Yin, Stake 5 believes the research process cannot be planned in its entirety because research evolves as it is performed. Consequently, researchers can adjust the design of their methods even after data collection has begun. Stake 5 classifies case studies into three categories: intrinsic, instrumental, and collective/multiple. Intrinsic case studies focus on gaining a better understanding of the case. These are often undertaken when the researcher has an interest in a specific case. Instrumental case study is used when the case itself is not of the utmost importance, and the issue or phenomenon (ie, the research question) being explored becomes the focus instead (eg, Paciocco 32 used an instrumental case study to evaluate the implementation of a chronic disease management program). 5 Collective designs are rooted in an instrumental case study and include multiple cases to gain an in-depth understanding of the complexity and particularity of a phenomenon across diverse contexts. 5 , 23 In collective designs, studying similarities and differences between the cases allows the phenomenon to be understood more intimately (for examples of this in the field, see van Zelm et al. 33 and Burrows et al. 34 In addition, Sibbald et al. 35 present an example where a cross-case analysis method is used to compare instrumental cases).

Merriam’s approach is flexible (similar to Stake) as well as stepwise and linear (similar to Yin). She advocates for conducting a literature review before designing the study to better understand the theoretical underpinnings. 24 , 25 Unlike Stake or Yin, Merriam proposes a step-by-step guide for researchers to design a case study. These steps include performing a literature review, creating a theoretical framework, identifying the problem, creating and refining the research question(s), and selecting a study sample that fits the question(s). 24 , 25 , 36

Data collection and analysis

Using multiple data collection methods is a key characteristic of all case study methodology; it enhances the credibility of the findings by allowing different facets and views of the phenomenon to be explored. 23 Common methods include interviews, focus groups, observation, and document analysis. 5 , 37 By seeking patterns within and across data sources, a thick description of the case can be generated to support a greater understanding and interpretation of the whole phenomenon. 5 , 17 , 20 , 23 This technique is called triangulation and is used to explore cases with greater accuracy. 5 Although Stake 5 maintains case study is most often used in qualitative research, Yin 17 supports a mix of both quantitative and qualitative methods to triangulate data. This deliberate convergence of data sources (or mixed methods) allows researchers to find greater depth in their analysis and develop converging lines of inquiry. For example, case studies evaluating interventions commonly use qualitative interviews to describe the implementation process, barriers, and facilitators paired with a quantitative survey of comparative outcomes and effectiveness. 33 , 38 , 39

Yin 30 describes analysis as dependent on the chosen approach, whether it be (1) deductive and rely on theoretical propositions; (2) inductive and analyze data from the “ground up”; (3) organized to create a case description; or (4) used to examine plausible rival explanations. According to Yin’s 40 approach to descriptive case studies, carefully considering theory development is an important part of study design. “Theory” refers to field-relevant propositions, commonly agreed upon assumptions, or fully developed theories. 40 Stake 5 advocates for using the researcher’s intuition and impression to guide analysis through a categorical aggregation and direct interpretation. Merriam 24 uses six different methods to guide the “process of making meaning” (p178) : (1) ethnographic analysis; (2) narrative analysis; (3) phenomenological analysis; (4) constant comparative method; (5) content analysis; and (6) analytic induction.

Drawing upon a theoretical or conceptual framework to inform analysis improves the quality of case study and avoids the risk of description without meaning. 18 Using Stake’s 5 approach, researchers rely on protocols and previous knowledge to help make sense of new ideas; theory can guide the research and assist researchers in understanding how new information fits into existing knowledge.

Practical applications of case study research

Columbia University has recently demonstrated how case studies can help train future health leaders. 41 Case studies encompass components of systems thinking—considering connections and interactions between components of a system, alongside the implications and consequences of those relationships—to equip health leaders with tools to tackle global health issues. 41 Greenwood 42 evaluated Indigenous peoples’ relationship with the healthcare system in British Columbia and used a case study to challenge and educate health leaders across the country to enhance culturally sensitive health service environments.

An important but often omitted step in case study research is an assessment of quality and rigour. We recommend using a framework or set of criteria to assess the rigour of the qualitative research. Suitable resources include Caelli et al., 43 Houghten et al., 44 Ravenek and Rudman, 45 and Tracy. 46

New directions in case study

Although “pragmatic” case studies (ie, utilizing practical and applicable methods) have existed within psychotherapy for some time, 47 , 48 only recently has the applicability of pragmatism as an underlying paradigmatic perspective been considered in HSR. 49 This is marked by uptake of pragmatism in Randomized Control Trials, recognizing that “gold standard” testing conditions do not reflect the reality of clinical settings 50 , 51 nor do a handful of epistemologically guided methodologies suit every research inquiry.

Pragmatism positions the research question as the basis for methodological choices, rather than a theory or epistemology, allowing researchers to pursue the most practical approach to understanding a problem or discovering an actionable solution. 52 Mixed methods are commonly used to create a deeper understanding of the case through converging qualitative and quantitative data. 52 Pragmatic case study is suited to HSR because its flexibility throughout the research process accommodates complexity, ever-changing systems, and disruptions to research plans. 49 , 50 Much like case study, pragmatism has been criticized for its flexibility and use when other approaches are seemingly ill-fit. 53 , 54 Similarly, authors argue that this results from a lack of investigation and proper application rather than a reflection of validity, legitimizing the need for more exploration and conversation among researchers and practitioners. 55

Although occasionally misunderstood as a less rigourous research methodology, 8 case study research is highly flexible and allows for contextual nuances. 5 , 6 Its use is valuable when the researcher desires a thorough understanding of a phenomenon or case bound by context. 11 If needed, multiple similar cases can be studied simultaneously, or one case within another. 16 , 17 There are currently three main approaches to case study, 5 , 17 , 24 each with their own definitions of a case, ontological and epistemological paradigms, methodologies, and data collection and analysis procedures. 37

Individuals’ experiences within health systems are influenced heavily by contextual factors, participant experience, and intricate relationships between different organizations and actors. 55 Case study research is well suited for HSR because it can track and examine these complex relationships and systems as they evolve over time. 6 , 7 It is important that researchers and health leaders using this methodology understand its key tenets and how to conduct a proper case study. Although there are many examples of case study in action, they are often under-reported and, when reported, not rigorously conducted. 9 Thus, decision-makers and health leaders should use these examples with caution. The proper reporting of case studies is necessary to bolster their credibility in HSR literature and provide readers sufficient information to critically assess the methodology. We also call on health leaders who frequently use case studies 56 – 58 to report them in the primary research literature.

The purpose of this article is to advocate for the continued and advanced use of case study in HSR and to provide literature-based guidance for decision-makers, policy-makers, and health leaders on how to engage in, read, and interpret findings from case study research. As health systems progress and evolve, the application of case study research will continue to increase as researchers and health leaders aim to capture the inherent complexities, nuances, and contextual factors. 7

Case study research: opening up research opportunities

RAUSP Management Journal

ISSN : 2531-0488

Article publication date: 30 December 2019

Issue publication date: 3 March 2020

The case study approach has been widely used in management studies and the social sciences more generally. However, there are still doubts about when and how case studies should be used. This paper aims to discuss this approach, its various uses and applications, in light of epistemological principles, as well as the criteria for rigor and validity.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper discusses the various concepts of case and case studies in the methods literature and addresses the different uses of cases in relation to epistemological principles and criteria for rigor and validity.

The use of this research approach can be based on several epistemologies, provided the researcher attends to the internal coherence between method and epistemology, or what the authors call “alignment.”

Originality/value

This study offers a number of implications for the practice of management research, as it shows how the case study approach does not commit the researcher to particular data collection or interpretation methods. Furthermore, the use of cases can be justified according to multiple epistemological orientations.

• Epistemology

Takahashi, A.R.W. and Araujo, L. (2020), "Case study research: opening up research opportunities", RAUSP Management Journal , Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 100-111. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-05-2019-0109

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2019, Adriana Roseli Wünsch Takahashi and Luis Araujo.

Published in RAUSP Management Journal . Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Introduction

The case study as a research method or strategy brings us to question the very term “case”: after all, what is a case? A case-based approach places accords the case a central role in the research process ( Ragin, 1992 ). However, doubts still remain about the status of cases according to different epistemologies and types of research designs.

Despite these doubts, the case study is ever present in the management literature and represents the main method of management research in Brazil ( Coraiola, Sander, Maccali, & Bulgacov, 2013 ). Between 2001 and 2010, 2,407 articles (83.14 per cent of qualitative research) were published in conferences and management journals as case studies (Takahashi & Semprebom, 2013 ). A search on Spell.org.br for the term “case study” under title, abstract or keywords, for the period ranging from January 2010 to July 2019, yielded 3,040 articles published in the management field. Doing research using case studies, allows the researcher to immerse him/herself in the context and gain intensive knowledge of a phenomenon, which in turn demands suitable methodological principles ( Freitas et al. , 2017 ).

Our objective in this paper is to discuss notions of what constitutes a case and its various applications, considering epistemological positions as well as criteria for rigor and validity. The alignment between these dimensions is put forward as a principle advocating coherence among all phases of the research process.

This article makes two contributions. First, we suggest that there are several epistemological justifications for using case studies. Second, we show that the quality and rigor of academic research with case studies are directly related to the alignment between epistemology and research design rather than to choices of specific forms of data collection or analysis. The article is structured as follows: the following four sections discuss concepts of what is a case, its uses, epistemological grounding as well as rigor and quality criteria. The brief conclusions summarize the debate and invite the reader to delve into the literature on the case study method as a way of furthering our understanding of contemporary management phenomena.

2. What is a case study?

The debate over what constitutes a case in social science is a long-standing one. In 1988, Howard Becker and Charles Ragin organized a workshop to discuss the status of the case as a social science method. As the discussion was inconclusive, they posed the question “What is a case?” to a select group of eight social scientists in 1989, and later to participants in a symposium on the subject. Participants were unable to come up with a consensual answer. Since then, we have witnessed that further debates and different answers have emerged. The original question led to an even broader issue: “How do we, as social scientists, produce results and seem to know what we know?” ( Ragin, 1992 , p. 16).

An important step that may help us start a reflection on what is a case is to consider the phenomena we are looking at. To do that, we must know something about what we want to understand and how we might study it. The answer may be a causal explanation, a description of what was observed or a narrative of what has been experienced. In any case, there will always be a story to be told, as the choice of the case study method demands an answer to what the case is about.

A case may be defined ex ante , prior to the start of the research process, as in Yin’s (2015) classical definition. But, there is no compelling reason as to why cases must be defined ex ante . Ragin (1992 , p. 217) proposed the notion of “casing,” to indicate that what the case is emerges from the research process:

Rather than attempt to delineate the many different meanings of the term “case” in a formal taxonomy, in this essay I offer instead a view of cases that follows from the idea implicit in many of the contributions – that concocting cases is a varied but routine social scientific activity. […] The approach of this essay is that this activity, which I call “casing”, should be viewed in practical terms as a research tactic. It is selectively invoked at many different junctures in the research process, usually to resolve difficult issues in linking ideas and evidence.

In other words, “casing” is tied to the researcher’s practice, to the way he/she delimits or declares a case as a significant outcome of a process. In 2013, Ragin revisited the 1992 concept of “casing” and explored its multiple possibilities of use, paying particular attention to “negative cases.”

According to Ragin (1992) , a case can be centered on a phenomenon or a population. In the first scenario, cases are representative of a phenomenon, and are selected based on what can be empirically observed. The process highlights different aspects of cases and obscures others according to the research design, and allows for the complexity, specificity and context of the phenomenon to be explored. In the alternative, population-focused scenario, the selection of cases precedes the research. Both positive and negative cases are considered in exploring a phenomenon, with the definition of the set of cases dependent on theory and the central objective to build generalizations. As a passing note, it is worth mentioning here that a study of multiple cases requires a definition of the unit of analysis a priori . Otherwise, it will not be possible to make cross-case comparisons.

These two approaches entail differences that go beyond the mere opposition of quantitative and qualitative data, as a case often includes both types of data. Thus, the confusion about how to conceive cases is associated with Ragin’s (1992) notion of “small vs large N,” or McKeown’s (1999) “statistical worldview” – the notion that relevant findings are only those that can be made about a population based on the analysis of representative samples. In the same vein, Byrne (2013) argues that we cannot generate nomothetic laws that apply in all circumstances, periods and locations, and that no social science method can claim to generate invariant laws. According to the same author, case studies can help us understand that there is more than one ideographic variety and help make social science useful. Generalizations still matter, but they should be understood as part of defining the research scope, and that scope points to the limitations of knowledge produced and consumed in concrete time and space.

Thus, what defines the orientation and the use of cases is not the mere choice of type of data, whether quantitative or qualitative, but the orientation of the study. A statistical worldview sees cases as data units ( Byrne, 2013 ). Put differently, there is a clear distinction between statistical and qualitative worldviews; the use of quantitative data does not by itself means that the research is (quasi) statistical, or uses a deductive logic:

Case-based methods are useful, and represent, among other things, a way of moving beyond a useless and destructive tradition in the social sciences that have set quantitative and qualitative modes of exploration, interpretation, and explanation against each other ( Byrne, 2013 , p. 9).

Other authors advocate different understandings of what a case study is. To some, it is a research method, to others it is a research strategy ( Creswell, 1998 ). Sharan Merrian and Robert Yin, among others, began to write about case study research as a methodology in the 1980s (Merrian, 2009), while authors such as Eisenhardt (1989) called it a research strategy. Stake (2003) sees the case study not as a method, but as a choice of what to be studied, the unit of study. Regardless of their differences, these authors agree that case studies should be restricted to a particular context as they aim to provide an in-depth knowledge of a given phenomenon: “A case study is an in-depth description and analysis of a bounded system” (Merrian, 2009, p. 40). According to Merrian, a qualitative case study can be defined by the process through which the research is carried out, by the unit of analysis or the final product, as the choice ultimately depends on what the researcher wants to know. As a product of research, it involves the analysis of a given entity, phenomenon or social unit.

Thus, whether it is an organization, an individual, a context or a phenomenon, single or multiple, one must delimit it, and also choose between possible types and configurations (Merrian, 2009; Yin, 2015 ). A case study may be descriptive, exploratory, explanatory, single or multiple ( Yin, 2015 ); intrinsic, instrumental or collective ( Stake, 2003 ); and confirm or build theory ( Eisenhardt, 1989 ).

both went through the same process of implementing computer labs intended for the use of information and communication technologies in 2007;

both took part in the same regional program (Paraná Digital); and

they shared similar characteristics regarding location (operation in the same neighborhood of a city), number of students, number of teachers and technicians and laboratory sizes.

However, the two institutions differed in the number of hours of program use, with one of them displaying a significant number of hours/use while the other showed a modest number, according to secondary data for the period 2007-2013. Despite the context being similar and the procedures for implementing the technology being the same, the mechanisms of social integration – an idiosyncratic factor of each institution – were different in each case. This explained differences in their use of resource, processes of organizational learning and capacity to absorb new knowledge.

On the other hand, multiple case studies seek evidence in different contexts and do not necessarily require direct comparisons ( Stake, 2003 ). Rather, there is a search for patterns of convergence and divergence that permeate all the cases, as the same issues are explored in every case. Cases can be added progressively until theoretical saturation is achieved. An example is of a study that investigated how entrepreneurial opportunity and management skills were developed through entrepreneurial learning ( Zampier & Takahashi, 2014 ). The authors conducted nine case studies, based on primary and secondary data, with each one analyzed separately, so a search for patterns could be undertaken. The convergence aspects found were: the predominant way of transforming experience into knowledge was exploitation; managerial skills were developed through by taking advantages of opportunities; and career orientation encompassed more than one style. As for divergence patterns: the experience of success and failure influenced entrepreneurs differently; the prevailing rationality logic of influence was different; and the combination of styles in career orientation was diverse.

A full discussion of choice of case study design is outside the scope of this article. For the sake of illustration, we make a brief mention to other selection criteria such as the purpose of the research, the state of the art of the research theme, the time and resources involved and the preferred epistemological position of the researcher. In the next section, we look at the possibilities of carrying out case studies in line with various epistemological traditions, as the answers to the “what is a case?” question reveal varied methodological commitments as well as diverse epistemological and ontological positions ( Ragin, 2013 ).

3. Epistemological positioning of case study research

Ontology and epistemology are like skin, not a garment to be occasionally worn ( Marsh & Furlong, 2002 ). According to these authors, ontology and epistemology guide the choice of theory and method because they cannot or should not be worn as a garment. Hence, one must practice philosophical “self-knowledge” to recognize one’s vision of what the world is and of how knowledge of that world is accessed and validated. Ontological and epistemological positions are relevant in that they involve the positioning of the researcher in social science and the phenomena he or she chooses to study. These positions do not tend to vary from one project to another although they can certainly change over time for a single researcher.

Ontology is the starting point from which the epistemological and methodological positions of the research arise ( Grix, 2002 ). Ontology expresses a view of the world, what constitutes reality, nature and the image one has of social reality; it is a theory of being ( Marsh & Furlong, 2002 ). The central question is the nature of the world out there regardless of our ability to access it. An essentialist or foundationalist ontology acknowledges that there are differences that persist over time and these differences are what underpin the construction of social life. An opposing, anti-foundationalist position presumes that the differences found are socially constructed and may vary – i.e. they are not essential but specific to a given culture at a given time ( Marsh & Furlong, 2002 ).

Epistemology is centered around a theory of knowledge, focusing on the process of acquiring and validating knowledge ( Grix, 2002 ). Positivists look at social phenomena as a world of causal relations where there is a single truth to be accessed and confirmed. In this tradition, case studies test hypotheses and rely on deductive approaches and quantitative data collection and analysis techniques. Scholars in the field of anthropology and observation-based qualitative studies proposed alternative epistemologies based on notions of the social world as a set of manifold and ever-changing processes. In management studies since the 1970s, the gradual acceptance of qualitative research has generated a diverse range of research methods and conceptions of the individual and society ( Godoy, 1995 ).

The interpretative tradition, in direct opposition to positivism, argues that there is no single objective truth to be discovered about the social world. The social world and our knowledge of it are the product of social constructions. Thus, the social world is constituted by interactions, and our knowledge is hermeneutic as the world does not exist independent of our knowledge ( Marsh & Furlong, 2002 ). The implication is that it is not possible to access social phenomena through objective, detached methods. Instead, the interaction mechanisms and relationships that make up social constructions have to be studied. Deductive approaches, hypothesis testing and quantitative methods are not relevant here. Hermeneutics, on the other hand, is highly relevant as it allows the analysis of the individual’s interpretation, of sayings, texts and actions, even though interpretation is always the “truth” of a subject. Methods such as ethnographic case studies, interviews and observations as data collection techniques should feed research designs according to interpretivism. It is worth pointing out that we are to a large extent, caricaturing polar opposites rather characterizing a range of epistemological alternatives, such as realism, conventionalism and symbolic interactionism.

If diverse ontologies and epistemologies serve as a guide to research approaches, including data collection and analysis methods, and if they should be regarded as skin rather than clothing, how does one make choices regarding case studies? What are case studies, what type of knowledge they provide and so on? The views of case study authors are not always explicit on this point, so we must delve into their texts to glean what their positions might be.

Two of the cited authors in case study research are Robert Yin and Kathleen Eisenhardt. Eisenhardt (1989) argues that a case study can serve to provide a description, test or generate a theory, the latter being the most relevant in contributing to the advancement of knowledge in a given area. She uses terms such as populations and samples, control variables, hypotheses and generalization of findings and even suggests an ideal number of case studies to allow for theory construction through replication. Although Eisenhardt includes observation and interview among her recommended data collection techniques, the approach is firmly anchored in a positivist epistemology:

Third, particularly in comparison with Strauss (1987) and Van Maanen (1988), the process described here adopts a positivist view of research. That is, the process is directed toward the development of testable hypotheses and theory which are generalizable across settings. In contrast, authors like Strauss and Van Maanen are more concerned that a rich, complex description of the specific cases under study evolve and they appear less concerned with development of generalizable theory ( Eisenhardt, 1989 , p. 546).

This position attracted a fair amount of criticism. Dyer & Wilkins (1991) in a critique of Eisenhardt’s (1989) article focused on the following aspects: there is no relevant justification for the number of cases recommended; it is the depth and not the number of cases that provides an actual contribution to theory; and the researcher’s purpose should be to get closer to the setting and interpret it. According to the same authors, discrepancies from prior expectations are also important as they lead researchers to reflect on existing theories. Eisenhardt & Graebner (2007 , p. 25) revisit the argument for the construction of a theory from multiple cases:

A major reason for the popularity and relevance of theory building from case studies is that it is one of the best (if not the best) of the bridges from rich qualitative evidence to mainstream deductive research.

Although they recognize the importance of single-case research to explore phenomena under unique or rare circumstances, they reaffirm the strength of multiple case designs as it is through them that better accuracy and generalization can be reached.

Likewise, Robert Yin emphasizes the importance of variables, triangulation in the search for “truth” and generalizable theoretical propositions. Yin (2015 , p. 18) suggests that the case study method may be appropriate for different epistemological orientations, although much of his work seems to invoke a realist epistemology. Authors such as Merrian (2009) and Stake (2003) suggest an interpretative version of case studies. Stake (2003) looks at cases as a qualitative option, where the most relevant criterion of case selection should be the opportunity to learn and understand a phenomenon. A case is not just a research method or strategy; it is a researcher’s choice about what will be studied:

Even if my definition of case study was agreed upon, and it is not, the term case and study defy full specification (Kemmis, 1980). A case study is both a process of inquiry about the case and the product of that inquiry ( Stake, 2003 , p. 136).

Later, Stake (2003 , p. 156) argues that:

[…] the purpose of a case report is not to represent the world, but to represent the case. […] The utility of case research to practitioners and policy makers is in its extension of experience.

Still according to Stake (2003 , pp. 140-141), to do justice to complex views of social phenomena, it is necessary to analyze the context and relate it to the case, to look for what is peculiar rather than common in cases to delimit their boundaries, to plan the data collection looking for what is common and unusual about facts, what could be valuable whether it is unique or common:

Reflecting upon the pertinent literature, I find case study methodology written largely by people who presume that the research should contribute to scientific generalization. The bulk of case study work, however, is done by individuals who have intrinsic interest in the case and little interest in the advance of science. Their designs aim the inquiry toward understanding of what is important about that case within its own world, which is seldom the same as the worlds of researchers and theorists. Those designs develop what is perceived to be the case’s own issues, contexts, and interpretations, its thick descriptions . In contrast, the methods of instrumental case study draw the researcher toward illustrating how the concerns of researchers and theorists are manifest in the case. Because the critical issues are more likely to be know in advance and following disciplinary expectations, such a design can take greater advantage of already developed instruments and preconceived coding schemes.

The aforementioned authors were listed to illustrate differences and sometimes opposing positions on case research. These differences are not restricted to a choice between positivism and interpretivism. It is worth noting that Ragin’s (2013 , p. 523) approach to “casing” is compatible with the realistic research perspective:

In essence, to posit cases is to engage in ontological speculation regarding what is obdurately real but only partially and indirectly accessible through social science. Bringing a realist perspective to the case question deepens and enriches the dialogue, clarifying some key issues while sweeping others aside.

cases are actual entities, reflecting their operations of real causal mechanism and process patterns;

case studies are interactive processes and are open to revisions and refinements; and

social phenomena are complex, contingent and context-specific.

Ragin (2013 , p. 532) concludes:

Lurking behind my discussion of negative case, populations, and possibility analysis is the implication that treating cases as members of given (and fixed) populations and seeking to infer the properties of populations may be a largely illusory exercise. While demographers have made good use of the concept of population, and continue to do so, it is not clear how much the utility of the concept extends beyond their domain. In case-oriented work, the notion of fixed populations of cases (observations) has much less analytic utility than simply “the set of relevant cases,” a grouping that must be specified or constructed by the researcher. The demarcation of this set, as the work of case-oriented researchers illustrates, is always tentative, fluid, and open to debate. It is only by casing social phenomena that social scientists perceive the homogeneity that allows analysis to proceed.

In summary, case studies are relevant and potentially compatible with a range of different epistemologies. Researchers’ ontological and epistemological positions will guide their choice of theory, methodologies and research techniques, as well as their research practices. The same applies to the choice of authors describing the research method and this choice should be coherent. We call this research alignment , an attribute that must be judged on the internal coherence of the author of a study, and not necessarily its evaluator. The following figure illustrates the interrelationship between the elements of a study necessary for an alignment ( Figure 1 ).

In addition to this broader aspect of the research as a whole, other factors should be part of the researcher’s concern, such as the rigor and quality of case studies. We will look into these in the next section taking into account their relevance to the different epistemologies.

4. Rigor and quality in case studies

Traditionally, at least in positivist studies, validity and reliability are the relevant quality criteria to judge research. Validity can be understood as external, internal and construct. External validity means identifying whether the findings of a study are generalizable to other studies using the logic of replication in multiple case studies. Internal validity may be established through the theoretical underpinning of existing relationships and it involves the use of protocols for the development and execution of case studies. Construct validity implies defining the operational measurement criteria to establish a chain of evidence, such as the use of multiple sources of evidence ( Eisenhardt, 1989 ; Yin, 2015 ). Reliability implies conducting other case studies, instead of just replicating results, to minimize the errors and bias of a study through case study protocols and the development of a case database ( Yin, 2015 ).

Several criticisms have been directed toward case studies, such as lack of rigor, lack of generalization potential, external validity and researcher bias. Case studies are often deemed to be unreliable because of a lack of rigor ( Seuring, 2008 ). Flyvbjerg (2006 , p. 219) addresses five misunderstandings about case-study research, and concludes that:

[…] a scientific discipline without a large number of thoroughly executed case studies is a discipline without systematic production of exemplars, and a discipline without exemplars is an ineffective one.

theoretical knowledge is more valuable than concrete, practical knowledge;

the case study cannot contribute to scientific development because it is not possible to generalize on the basis of an individual case;

the case study is more useful for generating rather than testing hypotheses;

the case study contains a tendency to confirm the researcher’s preconceived notions; and

it is difficult to summarize and develop general propositions and theories based on case studies.

These criticisms question the validity of the case study as a scientific method and should be corrected.

The critique of case studies is often framed from the standpoint of what Ragin (2000) labeled large-N research. The logic of small-N research, to which case studies belong, is different. Cases benefit from depth rather than breadth as they: provide theoretical and empirical knowledge; contribute to theory through propositions; serve not only to confirm knowledge, but also to challenge and overturn preconceived notions; and the difficulty in summarizing their conclusions is because of the complexity of the phenomena studies and not an intrinsic limitation of the method.

Thus, case studies do not seek large-scale generalizations as that is not their purpose. And yet, this is a limitation from a positivist perspective as there is an external reality to be “apprehended” and valid conclusions to be extracted for an entire population. If positivism is the epistemology of choice, the rigor of a case study can be demonstrated by detailing the criteria used for internal and external validity, construct validity and reliability ( Gibbert & Ruigrok, 2010 ; Gibbert, Ruigrok, & Wicki, 2008 ). An example can be seen in case studies in the area of information systems, where there is a predominant orientation of positivist approaches to this method ( Pozzebon & Freitas, 1998 ). In this area, rigor also involves the definition of a unit of analysis, type of research, number of cases, selection of sites, definition of data collection and analysis procedures, definition of the research protocol and writing a final report. Creswell (1998) presents a checklist for researchers to assess whether the study was well written, if it has reliability and validity and if it followed methodological protocols.

In case studies with a non-positivist orientation, rigor can be achieved through careful alignment (coherence among ontology, epistemology, theory and method). Moreover, the concepts of validity can be understood as concern and care in formulating research, research development and research results ( Ollaik & Ziller, 2012 ), and to achieve internal coherence ( Gibbert et al. , 2008 ). The consistency between data collection and interpretation, and the observed reality also help these studies meet coherence and rigor criteria. Siggelkow (2007) argues that a case study should be persuasive and that even a single case study may be a powerful example to contest a widely held view. To him, the value of a single case study or studies with few cases can be attained by their potential to provide conceptual insights and coherence to the internal logic of conceptual arguments: “[…] a paper should allow a reader to see the world, and not just the literature, in a new way” ( Siggelkow, 2007 , p. 23).

Interpretative studies should not be justified by criteria derived from positivism as they are based on a different ontology and epistemology ( Sandberg, 2005 ). The rejection of an interpretive epistemology leads to the rejection of an objective reality: “As Bengtsson points out, the life-world is the subjects’ experience of reality, at the same time as it is objective in the sense that it is an intersubjective world” ( Sandberg, 2005 , p. 47). In this event, how can one demonstrate what positivists call validity and reliability? What would be the criteria to justify knowledge as truth, produced by research in this epistemology? Sandberg (2005 , p. 62) suggests an answer based on phenomenology:

This was demonstrated first by explicating life-world and intentionality as the basic assumptions underlying the interpretative research tradition. Second, based on those assumptions, truth as intentional fulfillment, consisting of perceived fulfillment, fulfillment in practice, and indeterminate fulfillment, was proposed. Third, based on the proposed truth constellation, communicative, pragmatic, and transgressive validity and reliability as interpretative awareness were presented as the most appropriate criteria for justifying knowledge produced within interpretative approach. Finally, the phenomenological epoché was suggested as a strategy for achieving these criteria.

From this standpoint, the research site must be chosen according to its uniqueness so that one can obtain relevant insights that no other site could provide ( Siggelkow, 2007 ). Furthermore, the view of what is being studied is at the center of the researcher’s attention to understand its “truth,” inserted in a given context.

The case researcher is someone who can reduce the probability of misinterpretations by analyzing multiple perceptions, searches for data triangulation to check for the reliability of interpretations ( Stake, 2003 ). It is worth pointing out that this is not an option for studies that specifically seek the individual’s experience in relation to organizational phenomena.

In short, there are different ways of seeking rigor and quality in case studies, depending on the researcher’s worldview. These different forms pervade everything from the research design, the choice of research questions, the theory or theories to look at a phenomenon, research methods, the data collection and analysis techniques, to the type and style of research report produced. Validity can also take on different forms. While positivism is concerned with validity of the research question and results, interpretivism emphasizes research processes without neglecting the importance of the articulation of pertinent research questions and the sound interpretation of results ( Ollaik & Ziller, 2012 ). The means to achieve this can be diverse, such as triangulation (of multiple theories, multiple methods, multiple data sources or multiple investigators), pre-tests of data collection instrument, pilot case, study protocol, detailed description of procedures such as field diary in observations, researcher positioning (reflexivity), theoretical-empirical consistency, thick description and transferability.

5. Conclusions

The central objective of this article was to discuss concepts of case study research, their potential and various uses, taking into account different epistemologies as well as criteria of rigor and validity. Although the literature on methodology in general and on case studies in particular, is voluminous, it is not easy to relate this approach to epistemology. In addition, method manuals often focus on the details of various case study approaches which confuse things further.

Faced with this scenario, we have tried to address some central points in this debate and present various ways of using case studies according to the preferred epistemology of the researcher. We emphasize that this understanding depends on how a case is defined and the particular epistemological orientation that underpins that conceptualization. We have argued that whatever the epistemological orientation is, it is possible to meet appropriate criteria of research rigor and quality provided there is an alignment among the different elements of the research process. Furthermore, multiple data collection techniques can be used in in single or multiple case study designs. Data collection techniques or the type of data collected do not define the method or whether cases should be used for theory-building or theory-testing.

Finally, we encourage researchers to consider case study research as one way to foster immersion in phenomena and their contexts, stressing that the approach does not imply a commitment to a particular epistemology or type of research, such as qualitative or quantitative. Case study research allows for numerous possibilities, and should be celebrated for that diversity rather than pigeon-holed as a monolithic research method.

The interrelationship between the building blocks of research

Byrne , D. ( 2013 ). Case-based methods: Why We need them; what they are; how to do them . Byrne D. In D Byrne. and C.C Ragin (Eds.), The SAGE handbooks of Case-Based methods , pp. 1 – 10 . London : SAGE Publications Inc .

Creswell , J. W. ( 1998 ). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions , London : Sage Publications .

Coraiola , D. M. , Sander , J. A. , Maccali , N. & Bulgacov , S. ( 2013 ). Estudo de caso . In A. R. W. Takahashi , (Ed.), Pesquisa qualitativa em administração: Fundamentos, métodos e usos no Brasil , pp. 307 – 341 . São Paulo : Atlas .

Dyer , W. G. , & Wilkins , A. L. ( 1991 ). Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory: a rejoinder to Eisenhardt . The Academy of Management Review , 16 , 613 – 627 .

Eisenhardt , K. ( 1989 ). Building theory from case study research . Academy of Management Review , 14 , 532 – 550 .

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

Flyvbjerg , B. ( 2006 ). Five misunderstandings about case-study research . Qualitative Inquiry , 12 , 219 – 245 .

Freitas , J. S. , Ferreira , J. C. A. , Campos , A. A. R. , Melo , J. C. F. , Cheng , L. C. , & Gonçalves , C. A. ( 2017 ). Methodological roadmapping: a study of centering resonance analysis . RAUSP Management Journal , 53 , 459 – 475 .

Gibbert , M. , Ruigrok , W. , & Wicki , B. ( 2008 ). What passes as a rigorous case study? . Strategic Management Journal , 29 , 1465 – 1474 .

Gibbert , M. , & Ruigrok , W. ( 2010 ). The “what” and “how” of case study rigor: Three strategies based on published work . Organizational Research Methods , 13 , 710 – 737 .

Godoy , A. S. ( 1995 ). Introdução à pesquisa qualitativa e suas possibilidades . Revista de Administração de Empresas , 35 , 57 – 63 .

Grix , J. ( 2002 ). Introducing students to the generic terminology of social research . Politics , 22 , 175 – 186 .

Marsh , D. , & Furlong , P. ( 2002 ). A skin, not a sweater: ontology and epistemology in political science . In D Marsh. , & G Stoker , (Eds.), Theory and Methods in Political Science , New York, NY : Palgrave McMillan , pp. 17 – 41 .

McKeown , T. J. ( 1999 ). Case studies and the statistical worldview: Review of King, Keohane, and Verba’s designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research . International Organization , 53 , 161 – 190 .

Merriam , S. B. ( 2009 ). Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation .

Ollaik , L. G. , & Ziller , H. ( 2012 ). Distintas concepções de validade em pesquisas qualitativas . Educação e Pesquisa , 38 , 229 – 241 .

Picoli , F. R. , & Takahashi , A. R. W. ( 2016 ). Capacidade de absorção, aprendizagem organizacional e mecanismos de integração social . Revista de Administração Contemporânea , 20 , 1 – 20 .

Pozzebon , M. , & Freitas , H. M. R. ( 1998 ). Pela aplicabilidade: com um maior rigor científico – dos estudos de caso em sistemas de informação . Revista de Administração Contemporânea , 2 , 143 – 170 .

Sandberg , J. ( 2005 ). How do we justify knowledge produced within interpretive approaches? . Organizational Research Methods , 8 , 41 – 68 .

Seuring , S. A. ( 2008 ). Assessing the rigor of case study research in supply chain management. Supply chain management . Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , 13 , 128 – 137 .

Siggelkow , N. ( 2007 ). Persuasion with case studies . Academy of Management Journal , 50 , 20 – 24 .

Stake , R. E. ( 2003 ). Case studies . In N. K. , Denzin , & Y. S. , Lincoln (Eds.). Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry , London : Sage Publications . pp. 134 – 164 .

Takahashi , A. R. W. , & Semprebom , E. ( 2013 ). Resultados gerais e desafios . In A. R. W. , Takahashi (Ed.), Pesquisa qualitativa em administração: Fundamentos, métodos e usos no brasil , pp. 343 – 354 . São Paulo : Atlas .

Ragin , C. C. ( 1992 ). Introduction: Cases of “what is a case? . In H. S. , Becker , & C. C. Ragin and (Eds). What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry , pp. 1 – 18 .

Ragin , C. C. ( 2013 ). Reflections on casing and Case-Oriented research . In D , Byrne. , & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), The SAGE handbooks of Case-Based methods , London : SAGE Publications , pp. 522 – 534 .

Yin , R. K. ( 2015 ). Estudo de caso: planejamento e métodos , Porto Alegre : Bookman .

Zampier , M. A. , & Takahashi , A. R. W. ( 2014 ). Aprendizagem e competências empreendedoras: Estudo de casos de micro e pequenas empresas do setor educacional . RGO Revista Gestão Organizacional , 6 , 1 – 18 .

Acknowledgements

Author contributions: Both authors contributed equally.

Corresponding author

Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Case Study Research Method in Psychology

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Case studies are in-depth investigations of a person, group, event, or community. Typically, data is gathered from various sources using several methods (e.g., observations & interviews).

The case study research method originated in clinical medicine (the case history, i.e., the patient’s personal history). In psychology, case studies are often confined to the study of a particular individual.

The information is mainly biographical and relates to events in the individual’s past (i.e., retrospective), as well as to significant events that are currently occurring in his or her everyday life.

The case study is not a research method, but researchers select methods of data collection and analysis that will generate material suitable for case studies.

Freud (1909a, 1909b) conducted very detailed investigations into the private lives of his patients in an attempt to both understand and help them overcome their illnesses.

This makes it clear that the case study is a method that should only be used by a psychologist, therapist, or psychiatrist, i.e., someone with a professional qualification.

There is an ethical issue of competence. Only someone qualified to diagnose and treat a person can conduct a formal case study relating to atypical (i.e., abnormal) behavior or atypical development.

 Famous Case Studies

• Anna O – One of the most famous case studies, documenting psychoanalyst Josef Breuer’s treatment of “Anna O” (real name Bertha Pappenheim) for hysteria in the late 1800s using early psychoanalytic theory.
• Little Hans – A child psychoanalysis case study published by Sigmund Freud in 1909 analyzing his five-year-old patient Herbert Graf’s house phobia as related to the Oedipus complex.
• Bruce/Brenda – Gender identity case of the boy (Bruce) whose botched circumcision led psychologist John Money to advise gender reassignment and raise him as a girl (Brenda) in the 1960s.
• Genie Wiley – Linguistics/psychological development case of the victim of extreme isolation abuse who was studied in 1970s California for effects of early language deprivation on acquiring speech later in life.
• Phineas Gage – One of the most famous neuropsychology case studies analyzes personality changes in railroad worker Phineas Gage after an 1848 brain injury involving a tamping iron piercing his skull.

Clinical Case Studies

• Studying the effectiveness of psychotherapy approaches with an individual patient
• Assessing and treating mental illnesses like depression, anxiety disorders, PTSD
• Neuropsychological cases investigating brain injuries or disorders

Child Psychology Case Studies

• Studying psychological development from birth through adolescence
• Cases of learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorders, ADHD
• Effects of trauma, abuse, deprivation on development

Types of Case Studies

• Explanatory case studies : Used to explore causation in order to find underlying principles. Helpful for doing qualitative analysis to explain presumed causal links.
• Exploratory case studies : Used to explore situations where an intervention being evaluated has no clear set of outcomes. It helps define questions and hypotheses for future research.
• Descriptive case studies : Describe an intervention or phenomenon and the real-life context in which it occurred. It is helpful for illustrating certain topics within an evaluation.
• Multiple-case studies : Used to explore differences between cases and replicate findings across cases. Helpful for comparing and contrasting specific cases.
• Intrinsic : Used to gain a better understanding of a particular case. Helpful for capturing the complexity of a single case.
• Collective : Used to explore a general phenomenon using multiple case studies. Helpful for jointly studying a group of cases in order to inquire into the phenomenon.

Where Do You Find Data for a Case Study?

There are several places to find data for a case study. The key is to gather data from multiple sources to get a complete picture of the case and corroborate facts or findings through triangulation of evidence. Most of this information is likely qualitative (i.e., verbal description rather than measurement), but the psychologist might also collect numerical data.

1. Primary sources

• Interviews – Interviewing key people related to the case to get their perspectives and insights. The interview is an extremely effective procedure for obtaining information about an individual, and it may be used to collect comments from the person’s friends, parents, employer, workmates, and others who have a good knowledge of the person, as well as to obtain facts from the person him or herself.
• Observations – Observing behaviors, interactions, processes, etc., related to the case as they unfold in real-time.
• Documents & Records – Reviewing private documents, diaries, public records, correspondence, meeting minutes, etc., relevant to the case.

2. Secondary sources

• News/Media – News coverage of events related to the case study.
• Academic articles – Journal articles, dissertations etc. that discuss the case.
• Government reports – Official data and records related to the case context.
• Books/films – Books, documentaries or films discussing the case.

3. Archival records

Searching historical archives, museum collections and databases to find relevant documents, visual/audio records related to the case history and context.

Public archives like newspapers, organizational records, photographic collections could all include potentially relevant pieces of information to shed light on attitudes, cultural perspectives, common practices and historical contexts related to psychology.

4. Organizational records

Organizational records offer the advantage of often having large datasets collected over time that can reveal or confirm psychological insights.

Of course, privacy and ethical concerns regarding confidential data must be navigated carefully.

However, with proper protocols, organizational records can provide invaluable context and empirical depth to qualitative case studies exploring the intersection of psychology and organizations.

• Organizational/industrial psychology research : Organizational records like employee surveys, turnover/retention data, policies, incident reports etc. may provide insight into topics like job satisfaction, workplace culture and dynamics, leadership issues, employee behaviors etc.
• Clinical psychology : Therapists/hospitals may grant access to anonymized medical records to study aspects like assessments, diagnoses, treatment plans etc. This could shed light on clinical practices.
• School psychology : Studies could utilize anonymized student records like test scores, grades, disciplinary issues, and counseling referrals to study child development, learning barriers, effectiveness of support programs, and more.

How do I Write a Case Study in Psychology?

Follow specified case study guidelines provided by a journal or your psychology tutor. General components of clinical case studies include: background, symptoms, assessments, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. Interpreting the information means the researcher decides what to include or leave out. A good case study should always clarify which information is the factual description and which is an inference or the researcher’s opinion.

1. Introduction

• Provide background on the case context and why it is of interest, presenting background information like demographics, relevant history, and presenting problem.
• Compare briefly to similar published cases if applicable. Clearly state the focus/importance of the case.

2. Case Presentation

• Describe the presenting problem in detail, including symptoms, duration,and impact on daily life.
• Include client demographics like age and gender, information about social relationships, and mental health history.
• Describe all physical, emotional, and/or sensory symptoms reported by the client.
• Use patient quotes to describe the initial complaint verbatim. Follow with full-sentence summaries of relevant history details gathered, including key components that led to a working diagnosis.
• Summarize clinical exam results, namely orthopedic/neurological tests, imaging, lab tests, etc. Note actual results rather than subjective conclusions. Provide images if clearly reproducible/anonymized.
• Clearly state the working diagnosis or clinical impression before transitioning to management.

3. Management and Outcome

• Indicate the total duration of care and number of treatments given over what timeframe. Use specific names/descriptions for any therapies/interventions applied.
• Present the results of the intervention,including any quantitative or qualitative data collected.
• For outcomes, utilize visual analog scales for pain, medication usage logs, etc., if possible. Include patient self-reports of improvement/worsening of symptoms. Note the reason for discharge/end of care.

4. Discussion

• Analyze the case, exploring contributing factors, limitations of the study, and connections to existing research.
• Analyze the effectiveness of the intervention,considering factors like participant adherence, limitations of the study, and potential alternative explanations for the results.
• Identify any questions raised in the case analysis and relate insights to established theories and current research if applicable. Avoid definitive claims about physiological explanations.
• Offer clinical implications, and suggest future research directions.

5. Additional Items

• Thank specific assistants for writing support only. No patient acknowledgments.
• References should directly support any key claims or quotes included.
• Use tables/figures/images only if substantially informative. Include permissions and legends/explanatory notes.
• Provides detailed (rich qualitative) information.
• Provides insight for further research.
• Permitting investigation of otherwise impractical (or unethical) situations.

Case studies allow a researcher to investigate a topic in far more detail than might be possible if they were trying to deal with a large number of research participants (nomothetic approach) with the aim of ‘averaging’.

Because of their in-depth, multi-sided approach, case studies often shed light on aspects of human thinking and behavior that would be unethical or impractical to study in other ways.

Research that only looks into the measurable aspects of human behavior is not likely to give us insights into the subjective dimension of experience, which is important to psychoanalytic and humanistic psychologists.

Case studies are often used in exploratory research. They can help us generate new ideas (that might be tested by other methods). They are an important way of illustrating theories and can help show how different aspects of a person’s life are related to each other.

The method is, therefore, important for psychologists who adopt a holistic point of view (i.e., humanistic psychologists ).

Limitations

• Lacking scientific rigor and providing little basis for generalization of results to the wider population.
• Researchers’ own subjective feelings may influence the case study (researcher bias).
• Difficult to replicate.
• Time-consuming and expensive.
• The volume of data, together with the time restrictions in place, impacted the depth of analysis that was possible within the available resources.

Because a case study deals with only one person/event/group, we can never be sure if the case study investigated is representative of the wider body of “similar” instances. This means the conclusions drawn from a particular case may not be transferable to other settings.

Because case studies are based on the analysis of qualitative (i.e., descriptive) data , a lot depends on the psychologist’s interpretation of the information she has acquired.

This means that there is a lot of scope for Anna O , and it could be that the subjective opinions of the psychologist intrude in the assessment of what the data means.

For example, Freud has been criticized for producing case studies in which the information was sometimes distorted to fit particular behavioral theories (e.g., Little Hans ).

This is also true of Money’s interpretation of the Bruce/Brenda case study (Diamond, 1997) when he ignored evidence that went against his theory.

Breuer, J., & Freud, S. (1895).  Studies on hysteria . Standard Edition 2: London.

Curtiss, S. (1981). Genie: The case of a modern wild child .

Diamond, M., & Sigmundson, K. (1997). Sex Reassignment at Birth: Long-term Review and Clinical Implications. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine , 151(3), 298-304

Freud, S. (1909a). Analysis of a phobia of a five year old boy. In The Pelican Freud Library (1977), Vol 8, Case Histories 1, pages 169-306

Freud, S. (1909b). Bemerkungen über einen Fall von Zwangsneurose (Der “Rattenmann”). Jb. psychoanal. psychopathol. Forsch ., I, p. 357-421; GW, VII, p. 379-463; Notes upon a case of obsessional neurosis, SE , 10: 151-318.

Harlow J. M. (1848). Passage of an iron rod through the head.  Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, 39 , 389–393.

Harlow, J. M. (1868).  Recovery from the Passage of an Iron Bar through the Head .  Publications of the Massachusetts Medical Society. 2  (3), 327-347.

Money, J., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (1972).  Man & Woman, Boy & Girl : The Differentiation and Dimorphism of Gender Identity from Conception to Maturity. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Money, J., & Tucker, P. (1975). Sexual signatures: On being a man or a woman.

Further Information

• Case Study Approach
• Case Study Method
• Enhancing the Quality of Case Studies in Health Services Research
• “We do things together” A case study of “couplehood” in dementia
• Using mixed methods for evaluating an integrative approach to cancer care: a case study

Related Articles

Research Methodology

Qualitative Data Coding

What Is a Focus Group?

Cross-Cultural Research Methodology In Psychology

What Is Internal Validity In Research?

Research Methodology , Statistics

What Is Face Validity In Research? Importance & How To Measure

Criterion Validity: Definition & Examples

• How it works

A Quick Guide to Case Study with Examples

Published by Alvin Nicolas at August 14th, 2021 , Revised On August 29, 2023

A case study is a documented history and detailed analysis of a situation concerning organisations, industries, and markets.

A case study:

• Focuses on discovering new facts of the situation under observation.
• Includes data collection from multiple sources over time.
• Widely used in social sciences to study the underlying information, organisation, community, or event.
• It does not provide any solution to the problem .

When to Use Case Study? 

You can use a case study in your research when:

• The focus of your study is to find answers to how and why questions .
• You don’t have enough time to conduct extensive research; case studies are convenient for completing your project successfully.
• You want to analyse real-world problems in-depth, then you can use the method of the case study.

You can consider a single case to gain in-depth knowledge about the subject, or you can choose multiple cases to know about various aspects of your  research problem .

What are the Aims of the Case Study?

• The case study aims at identifying weak areas that can be improved.
• This method is often used for idiographic research (focuses on individual cases or events).
• Another aim of the case study is nomothetic research (aims to discover new theories through data analysis of multiple cases).

Types of Case Studies

There are different types of case studies that can be categorised based on the purpose of the investigation.

Looking for dissertation help?

Researchprospect to the rescue then.

We have expert writers on our team who are skilled at helping students with dissertations across a variety of STEM disciplines. Guaranteeing 100% satisfaction!

How to Conduct a Case Study?

• Select the Case to Investigate
• Formulate the Research Question
• Review of Literature
• Choose the Precise Case to Use in your Study
• Select Data Collection and Analysis Techniques
• Collect the Data
• Analyse the Data
• Prepare the Report

Step1: Select the Case to Investigate

The first step is to select a case to conduct your investigation. You should remember the following points.

• Make sure that you perform the study in the available timeframe.
• There should not be too much information available about the organisation.
• You should be able to get access to the organisation.
• There should be enough information available about the subject to conduct further research.

Step2: Formulate the Research Question

It’s necessary to  formulate a research question  to proceed with your case study. Most of the research questions begin with  how, why, what, or what can . 

You can also use a research statement instead of a research question to conduct your research which can be conditional or non-conditional. 

Step 3: Review of Literature

Once you formulate your research statement or question, you need to extensively  review the documentation about the existing discoveries related to your research question or statement.

Step 4: Choose the Precise Case to Use in your Study

You need to select a specific case or multiple cases related to your research. It would help if you treated each case individually while using multiple cases. The outcomes of each case can be used as contributors to the outcomes of the entire study.  You can select the following cases. 

• Representing various geographic regions
• Cases with various size parameters
• Explaining the existing theories or assumptions
• Leading to discoveries
• Providing a base for future research.

Step 5: Select Data Collection and Analysis Techniques

You can choose both  qualitative or quantitative approaches  for  collecting the data . You can use  interviews ,  surveys , artifacts, documentation, newspapers, and photographs, etc. To avoid biased observation, you can triangulate  your research to provide different views of your case. Even if you are focusing on a single case, you need to observe various case angles. It would help if you constructed validity, internal and external validity, as well as reliability.

Example: Identifying the impacts of contaminated water on people’s health and the factors responsible for it. You need to gather the data using qualitative and quantitative approaches to understand the case in such cases.

Construct validity:  You should select the most suitable measurement tool for your research. 

Internal validity:   You should use various methodological tools to  triangulate  the data. Try different methods to study the same hypothesis.

External validity:  You need to effectively apply the data beyond the case’s circumstances to more general issues.

Reliability:   You need to be confident enough to formulate the new direction for future studies based on your findings.

Also Read:  Reliability and Validity

Step 6: Collect the Data

Beware of the following when collecting data:

• Information should be gathered systematically, and the collected evidence from various sources should contribute to your research objectives.
• Don’t collect your data randomly.
• Recheck your research questions to avoid mistakes.
• You should save the collected data in any popular format for clear understanding.
• While making any changes to collecting information, make sure to record the changes in a document.
• You should maintain a case diary and note your opinions and thoughts evolved throughout the study.

Step 7: Analyse the Data

The research data identifies the relationship between the objects of study and the research questions or statements. You need to reconfirm the collected information and tabulate it correctly for better understanding. 

Step 8: Prepare the Report

It’s essential to prepare a report for your case study. You can write your case study in the form of a scientific paper or thesis discussing its detail with supporting evidence. 

A case study can be represented by incorporating  quotations,  stories, anecdotes,  interview transcripts , etc., with empirical data in the result section. 

You can also write it in narrative styles using  textual analysis  or   discourse analysis . Your report should also include evidence from published literature, and you can put it in the discussion section.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Case Study

Frequently asked questions, what is the case study.

A case study is a research method where a specific instance, event, or situation is deeply examined to gain insights into real-world complexities. It involves detailed analysis of context, data, and variables to understand patterns, causes, and effects, often used in various disciplines for in-depth exploration.

You May Also Like

Sampling methods are used to to draw valid conclusions about a large community, organization or group of people, but they are based on evidence and reasoning.

Content analysis is used to identify specific words, patterns, concepts, themes, phrases, or sentences within the content in the recorded communication.

A variable is a characteristic that can change and have more than one value, such as age, height, and weight. But what are the different types of variables?

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

What the Case Study Method Really Teaches

• Nitin Nohria

Seven meta-skills that stick even if the cases fade from memory.

It’s been 100 years since Harvard Business School began using the case study method. Beyond teaching specific subject matter, the case study method excels in instilling meta-skills in students. This article explains the importance of seven such skills: preparation, discernment, bias recognition, judgement, collaboration, curiosity, and self-confidence.

During my decade as dean of Harvard Business School, I spent hundreds of hours talking with our alumni. To enliven these conversations, I relied on a favorite question: “What was the most important thing you learned from your time in our MBA program?”

• Nitin Nohria is the George F. Baker Jr. and Distinguished Service University Professor. He served as the 10th dean of Harvard Business School, from 2010 to 2020.

Partner Center

• Open access
• Published: 03 June 2024

The use of evidence to guide decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic: divergent perspectives from a qualitative case study in British Columbia, Canada

• Laura Jane Brubacher   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2806-9539 1 , 2 ,
• Chris Y. Lovato 1 ,
• Veena Sriram 1 , 3 ,
• Michael Cheng 1 &
• Peter Berman 1  

Health Research Policy and Systems volume  22 , Article number:  66 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

94 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

The challenges of evidence-informed decision-making in a public health emergency have never been so notable as during the COVID-19 pandemic. Questions about the decision-making process, including what forms of evidence were used, and how evidence informed—or did not inform—policy have been debated.

We examined decision-makers' observations on evidence-use in early COVID-19 policy-making in British Columbia (BC), Canada through a qualitative case study. From July 2021- January 2022, we conducted 18 semi-structured key informant interviews with BC elected officials, provincial and regional-level health officials, and civil society actors involved in the public health response. The questions focused on: (1) the use of evidence in policy-making; (2) the interface between researchers and policy-makers; and (3) key challenges perceived by respondents as barriers to applying evidence to COVID-19 policy decisions. Data were analyzed thematically, using a constant comparative method. Framework analysis was also employed to generate analytic insights across stakeholder perspectives.

Overall, while many actors’ impressions were that BC's early COVID-19 policy response was evidence-informed, an overarching theme was a lack of clarity and uncertainty as to what evidence was used and how it flowed into decision-making processes. Perspectives diverged on the relationship between 'government' and public health expertise, and whether or not public health actors had an independent voice in articulating evidence to inform pandemic governance. Respondents perceived a lack of coordination and continuity across data sources, and a lack of explicit guidelines on evidence-use in the decision-making process, which resulted in a sense of fragmentation. The tension between the processes involved in research and the need for rapid decision-making was perceived as a barrier to using evidence to inform policy.

Conclusions

Areas to be considered in planning for future emergencies include: information flow between policy-makers and researchers, coordination of data collection and use, and transparency as to how decisions are made—all of which reflect a need to improve communication. Based on our findings, clear mechanisms and processes for channeling varied forms of evidence into decision-making need to be identified, and doing so will strengthen preparedness for future public health crises.

Peer Review reports

The challenges of evidence-informed decision-making Footnote 1 in a public health emergency have never been so salient as during the COVID-19 pandemic, given its unprecedented scale, rapidly evolving virology, and multitude of global information systems to gather, synthesize, and disseminate evidence on the SARS-CoV-2 virus and associated public health and social measures [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, rapid decision-making became central for governments globally as they grappled with crucial decisions for which there was limited evidence. Critical questions exist, in looking retrospectively at these decision-making processes and with an eye to strengthening future preparedness: Were decisions informed by 'evidence'? What forms of evidence were used, and how, by decision-makers? [ 4 , 5 , 6 ].

Scientific evidence, including primary research, epidemiologic research, and knowledge synthesis, is one among multiple competing influences that inform decision-making processes in an outbreak such as COVID-19 [ 7 ]. Indeed, the use of multiple forms of evidence has been particularly notable as it applies to COVID-19 policy-making. Emerging research has also documented the important influence of ‘non-scientific’ evidence such as specialized expertise and experience, contextual information, and level of available resources [ 8 , 9 , 10 ]. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the politics of evidence-use in policy-making [ 11 ]; what evidence is used and how can be unclear, and shaped by political bias [ 4 , 5 ]. Moreover, while many governments have established scientific advisory boards, the perspectives of these advisors were reportedly largely absent from COVID-19 policy processes [ 6 ]. How evidence and public health policy interface—and intersect—is a complex question, particularly in the dynamic context of a public health emergency.

Within Canada, a hallmark of the public health system and endorsed by government is evidence-informed decision-making [ 12 ]. In British Columbia (BC), Canada, during the early phases of COVID-19 (March—June 2020), provincial public health communication focused primarily on voluntary compliance with recommended public health and social measures, and on supporting those most affected by the pandemic. Later, the response shifted from voluntary compliance to mandatory enforceable government orders [ 13 ]. Like many other jurisdictions, the government’s public messaging in BC asserted that the province took an approach to managing the COVID-19 pandemic and developing related policy that was based on scientific evidence, specifically. For example, in March 2021, in announcing changes to vaccination plans, Dr. Bonnie Henry, the Provincial Health Officer, stated, " This is science in action " [ 14 ]. As a public health expert with scientific voice, the Provincial Health Officer has been empowered to speak on behalf of the BC government across the COVID-19 pandemic progression. While this suggests BC is a jurisdiction which has institutionalized scientifically-informed decision-making as a core tenet of effective public health crisis response, it remains unclear as to whether BC’s COVID-19 response could, in fact, be considered evidence-informed—particularly from the perspectives of those involved in pandemic decision-making and action. Moreover, if evidence-informed, what types of evidence were utilized and through what mechanisms, how did this evidence shape decision-making, and what challenges existed in moving evidence to policy and praxis in BC’s COVID-19 response?

The objectives of this study were: (1) to explore and characterize the perspectives of BC actors involved in the COVID-19 response with respect to evidence-use in COVID-19 decision-making; and (2) to identify opportunities for and barriers to evidence-informed decision-making in BC’s COVID-19 response, and more broadly. This inquiry may contribute to identifying opportunities for further strengthening the synthesis and application of evidence (considered broadly) to public health policy and decision-making, particularly in the context of future public health emergencies, both in British Columbia and other jurisdictions.

Study context

This qualitative study was conducted in the province of British Columbia (BC), Canada, a jurisdiction with a population of approximately five million people [ 15 ]. Within BC’s health sector, key actors involved in the policy response to COVID-19 included: elected officials, the BC Government’s Ministry of Health (MOH), the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA), Footnote 2 the Office of the Provincial Health Officer (PHO), Footnote 3 the BC Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC), Footnote 4 and Medical Health Officers (MHOs) and Chief MHOs at regional and local levels.

Health research infrastructure within the province includes Michael Smith Health Research BC [ 16 ] and multiple post-secondary research and education institutions (e.g., The University of British Columbia). Unlike other provincial (e.g., Ontario) and international (e.g., UK) jurisdictions, BC did not establish an independent, formal scientific advisory panel or separate organizational structure for public health intelligence in COVID-19. That said, a Strategic Research Advisory Council was established, reporting to the MOH and PHO, to identify COVID-19 research gaps and commission needed research for use within the COVID-19 response [ 17 ].

This research was part of a multidisciplinary UBC case study investigating the upstream determinants of the COVID-19 response in British Columbia, particularly related to institutions, politics, and organizations and how these interfaced with, and affected, pandemic governance [ 18 ]. Ethics approval for this study was provided by the University of British Columbia (UBC)’s Institutional Research Ethics Board (Certificate #: H20-02136).

Data collection

From July 2021 to January 2022, 18 semi-structured key informant interviews were conducted with BC elected officials, provincial and regional-level health officials, and civil society actors (e.g., within non-profit research organizations, unions) (Table 1 ). Initially, respondents were purposively sampled, based on their involvement in the COVID-19 response and their positioning within the health system organizational structure. Snowball sampling was used to identify additional respondents, with the intent of representing a range of organizational roles and actor perspectives. Participants were recruited via email invitation and provided written informed consent to participate.

Interviews were conducted virtually using Zoom® videoconferencing, with the exception of one hybrid in-person/Zoom® interview. Each interview was approximately one hour in duration. One to two research team members led each interview. The full interview protocol focused on actors’ descriptions of decision-making processes across the COVID-19 pandemic progression, from January 2020 to the date of the interviews, and they were asked to identify key decision points (e.g., emergency declaration, business closures) [see Additional File 1 for the full semi-structured interview guide]. For this study, we used a subset of interview questions focused on evidence-use in the decision-making process, and the organizational structures or actors involved, in BC's early COVID-19 pandemic response (March–August 2020). Questions were adapted to be relevant to a respondent’s expertise and particular involvement in the response. ‘Evidence’ was left undefined and considered broadly by the research team (i.e., both ‘scientific’/research-based and ‘non-scientific’ inputs) within interview questions, and therefore at the discretion of the participant as to what inputs they perceived and described as ‘evidence’ that informed or did not inform pandemic decision-making. Interviews were audio-recorded over Zoom® with permission and transcribed using NVivo Release 1.5© software. Each transcript was then manually verified for accuracy by 1–2 members of the research team.

Data analysis

An inductive thematic analysis was conducted, using a constant comparative method, to explore points of divergence and convergence across interviews and stakeholder perspectives [ 19 ]. Transcripts were inductively coded in NVivo Release 1.5© software, which was used to further organize and consolidate codes, generate a parsimonious codebook to fit the data, and retrieve interview excerpts [ 20 ]. Framework analysis was also employed as an additional method for generating analytic insights across stakeholder perspectives and contributed to refining the overall coding [ 21 ]. Triangulation across respondents and analytic methods, as well as team collaboration in reviewing and refining the codebook, contributed to validity of the analysis [ 22 ].

How did evidence inform early COVID-19 policy-making in BC?

Decision-makers described their perceptions on the use of evidence in policy-making; the interface between researchers and policy-makers; and specific barriers to evidence-use in policy-making within BC’s COVID-19 response. In discussing the use of evidence, respondents focused on ‘scientific’ evidence; however, they noted a lack of clarity as to how and what evidence flowed into decision-making. They also acknowledged that ‘scientific’ evidence was one of multiple factors influencing decisions. The themes described below reflect the narrative underlying their perspectives.

Perceptions of evidence-use

Multiple provincial actors generally expressed confidence or had an overall impression that decisions were evidence-based (IDI5,9), stating definitively that, "I don’t think there was a decision we made that wasn’t evidence-informed" (IDI9) and that "the science became a driver of decisions that were made" (IDI5). However, at the regional health authority level, one actor voiced skepticism that policy decisions were consistently informed by scientific evidence specifically, stating, "a lot of decisions [the PHO] made were in contrast to science and then shifted to be by the science" ( IDI6). The evolving nature of the available evidence and scientific understanding of the virus throughout the pandemic was acknowledged. For instance, one actor stated that, "I’ll say the response has been driven by the science; the science has been changing…from what I’ve seen, [it] has been a very science-based response" (IDI3).

Some actors narrowed in on certain policy decisions they believed were or were not evidence-informed. Policy decisions in 2020 that actors believed were directly informed by scientific data included the early decision to restrict informal, household gatherings; to keep schools open for in-person learning; to implement a business safety plan requirement across the province; and to delay the second vaccine dose for maximum efficacy. One provincial public health actor noted that an early 2020 decision made, within local jurisdictions, to close playgrounds was not based on scientific evidence. Further, the decision prompted public health decision-makers to centralize some decision-making to the provincial level, to address decisions being made 'on the ground' that were not based on scientific evidence (IDI16). Similarly, they added that the policy decision to require masking in schools was not based on scientific evidence; rather, "it's policy informed by the noise of your community." As parents and other groups within the community pushed for masking, this was "a policy decision to help schools stay open."

Early in the pandemic response, case data in local jurisdictions were reportedly used for monitoring and planning. These "numerator data" (IDI1), for instance case or hospitalization counts, were identified as being the primary mode of evidence used to inform decisions related to the implementation or easing of public health and social measures. The ability to generate epidemiological count data early in the pandemic due to efficient scaling up of PCR testing for COVID-19 was noted as a key advantage (IDI16). As the pandemic evolved in 2020, however, perspectives diverged in relation to the type of data that decision-makers relied on. For example, it was noted that BCCDC administered an online, voluntary survey to monitor unintended consequences of public health and social measures and inform targeted interventions. Opinions varied on whether this evidence was successfully applied in decision-making. One respondent emphasized this lack of application of evidence and perceived that public health orders were not informed by the level and type of evidence available, beyond case counts: "[In] a communicable disease crisis like a pandemic, the collateral impact slash damage is important and if you're going to be a public health institute, you actually have to bring those to the front, not just count cases" (IDI1).

There also existed some uncertainty and a perceived lack of transparency or clarity as to how or whether data analytic ‘entities’, such as BCCDC or research institutions, fed directly into decision-making. As a research actor shared, "I’m not sure that I know quite what all those channels really look like…I’m sure that there’s a lot of improvement that could be driven in terms of how we bring strong evidence to actual policy and practice" (IDI14). Another actor explicitly named the way information flowed into decision-making in the province as "organic" (IDI7). They also noted the lack of a formal, independent science advisory panel for BC’s COVID-19 response, which existed in other provincial and international jurisdictions. Relatedly, one regional health authority actor perceived that the committee that was convened to advise the province on research, and established for the purpose of applying research to the COVID-19 response, "should have focused more on knowledge translation, but too much time was spent commissioning research and asking what kinds of questions we needed to ask rather than looking at what was happening in other jurisdictions" (IDI6). Overall, multiple actors noted a lack of clarity around application of evidence and who is responsible for ensuring evidence is applied. As a BCCDC actor expressed, in relation to how to prevent transmission of COVID-19:

We probably knew most of the things that we needed to know about May of last year [2020]. So, to me, it’s not even what evidence you need to know about, but who’s responsible for making sure that you actually apply the evidence to the intervention? Because so many of our interventions have been driven by peer pressure and public expectation rather than what we know to be the case [scientifically] (IDI1).

Some described the significance of predictive disease modelling to understand the COVID-19 trajectory and inform decisions, as well as to demonstrate to the public the effectiveness of particular measures, which "help[ed] sustain our response" (IDI2). Others, however, perceived that "mathematical models were vastly overused [and] overvalued in decision-making around this pandemic" (IDI1) and that modellers stepped outside their realm of expertise in providing models and policy recommendations through the public media.

Overall, while many actors’ impressions were that the response was evidence-informed, an overarching theme was a lack of clarity and uncertainty with respect to how evidence actually flowed into decision-making processes, as well as what specific evidence was used and how. Participants noted various mechanisms created or already in place prior to COVID-19 that fed data into, and facilitated, decision-making. There was an acknowledgement that multiple forms of evidence—including scientific data, data on public perceptions, as well as public pressure—appeared to have influenced decision-making.

Interface between researchers and policy-makers

There was a general sense that the Ministry supported the use of scientific and research-based evidence specifically. Some actors identified particular Ministry personnel as being especially amenable to research and focused on data to inform decisions and implementation. More broadly, the government-research interface was characterized by one actor as an amicable one, a "research-friendly government", and that the Ministry of Health (MOH), specifically, has a research strategy whereby, "it’s literally within their bureaucracy to become a more evidence-informed organization" (IDI11). The MOH was noted to have funded a research network intended to channel evidence into health policy and practice, and which reported to the research side of the MOH.

Other actors perceived relatively limited engagement with the broader scientific community. Some perceived an overreliance on 'in-house expertise' or a "we can do that [ourselves] mentality" within government that precluded academic researchers’ involvement, as well as a sense of "not really always wanting to engage with academics to answer policy questions because they don’t necessarily see the value that comes" (IDI14). With respect to the role of research, an actor stated:

There needs to be a provincial dialogue around what evidence is and how it gets situated, because there’s been some tension around evidence being produced and not used or at least not used in the way that researchers think that it should be (IDI11).

Those involved in data analytics within the MOH acknowledged a challenge in making epidemiological data available to academic researchers, because "at the time, you’re just trying to get decisions made" (IDI7). Relatedly, a research actor described the rapid instigation of COVID-19 research and pivoting of academic research programs to respond to the pandemic, but perceived a slow uptake of these research efforts from the MOH and PHSA for decision-making and action. Nevertheless, they too acknowledged the challenge of using research evidence, specifically, in an evolving and dynamic pandemic:

I think we’ve got to be realistic about what research in a pandemic situation can realistically contribute within very short timelines. I mean, some of these decisions have to be made very quickly...they were intuitive decisions, I think some of them, rather than necessarily evidence-based decisions (IDI14).

Relatedly, perspectives diverged on the relationship between 'government' and public health expertise, and whether or not public health actors had an independent voice in articulating evidence to inform governance during the pandemic. Largely from Ministry stakeholders, and those within the PHSA, the impressions were that Ministry actors were relying on public health advice and scientific expertise. As one actor articulated, "[the] government actually respected and acknowledged and supported public health expertise" (IDI9). Others emphasized a "trust of the people who understood the problem" (IDI3)—namely, those within public health—and perceived that public health experts were enabled "to take a lead role in the health system, over politics" (IDI12). This perspective was not as widely held by those in the public health sector, as one public health actor expressed, "politicians and bureaucrats waded into public health practice in a way that I don't think was appropriate" and that, "in the context of a pandemic, it’s actually relatively challenging to bring true expert advice because there’s too many right now. Suddenly, everybody’s a public health expert, but especially bureaucrats and politicians." They went on to share that the independence of public health to speak and act—and for politicians to accept independent public health advice—needs to be protected and institutionalized as "core to good governance" (IDI1). Relatedly, an elected official linked this to the absence of a formal, independent science table to advise government and stated that, "I think we should have one established permanently. I think we need to recognize that politicians aren't always the best at discerning scientific evidence and how that should play into decision-making" (IDI15).

These results highlight the divergent perspectives participants had as to the interface between research and policy-making and a lack of understanding regarding process and roles.

Challenges in applying evidence to policy decisions

Perspectives converged with respect to the existence of numerous challenges with and barriers to applying evidence to health policy and decision-making. These related to the quality and breadth of available data, both in terms of absence and abundance. For instance, as one public health actor noted in relation to health policy-making, "you never have enough information. You always have an information shortage, so you're trying to make the best decisions you can in the absence of usually really clear information" (IDI8). On the other hand, as evidence emerged en masse across jurisdictions in the pandemic, there were challenges with synthesizing evidence in a timely fashion for 'real-time' decision-making. A regional health authority actor highlighted this challenge early in the COVID-19 pandemic and perceived that there was not a provincial group bringing new synthesized information to decision-makers on a daily basis (IDI6). Other challenges related to the complexity of the political-public health interface with respect to data and scientific expertise, which "gets debated and needs to be digested by the political process. And then decisions are made" (IDI5). This actor further expressed that debate among experts needs to be balanced with efficient crisis response, that one has to "cut the debate short. For the sake of expediency, you need to react."

It was observed that, in BC’s COVID-19 response, data was gathered from multiple sources with differing data collection procedures, and sometimes with conflicting results—for instance, 'health system data' analyzed by the PHSA and 'public health data' analyzed by the BCCDC. This was observed to present challenges from a political perspective in discerning "who’s actually getting the 'right' answers" (IDI7). An added layer of complexity was reportedly rooted in how to communicate such evidence to the public and "public trust in the numbers" (IDI7), particularly as public understanding of what evidence is, how it is developed, and why it changes, can influence public perceptions of governance.

Finally, as one actor from within the research sector noted, organizationally and governance-wise, the system was "not very well set up to actually use research evidence…if we need to do better at using evidence in practice, we need to fix some of those things. And we actually know what a lot of those things are." For example , "there’s no science framework for how organizations work within that" and " governments shy away from setting science policy " (IDI11). This challenge was framed as having a macro-level dimension, as higher-level leadership structures were observed to not incentivize the development and effective use of research among constituent organizations, and also micro-level implications. From their perspective, researchers will struggle without such policy frameworks to obtain necessary data-sharing agreements with health authorities, nor will they be able to successfully navigate other barriers to conducting action-oriented research that informs policy and practice.

Similarly, a research actor perceived that the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted pre-existing fragmentation, "a pretty disjointed sort of enterprise" in how research is organized in the province:

I think pandemics need strong leadership and I think pandemic research response needed probably stronger leadership than it had. And I think that’s to do with [how] no one really knew who was in charge because no one really was given the role of being truly in charge of the research response (IDI14).

This individual underscored that, at the time of the interview, there were nearly 600 separate research projects being conducted in BC that focused on COVID-19. From their perspective, this reflected the need for more centralized direction to provide leadership, coordinate research efforts, and catalyze collaborations.

Overall, respondents perceived a lack of coordination and continuity across data sources, and a lack of explicit guidelines on evidence-use in the decision-making process, which resulted in a sense of fragmentation. The tension between the processes involved in research and the need for rapid decision-making was perceived as a barrier to using evidence to inform policy.

This study explored the use of evidence to inform early COVID-19 decision-making within British Columbia, Canada, from the perspectives of decision-makers themselves. Findings underscore the complexity of synthesizing and applying evidence (i.e., ‘scientific’ or research-based evidence most commonly discussed) to support public health policy in 'real-time', particularly in the context of public health crisis response. Despite a substantial and long-established literature on evidence-based clinical decision-making [ 23 , 24 ], understanding is more limited as to how public health crisis decision-making can be evidence-informed or evidence-based. By contributing to a growing global scholarship of retrospective examinations of COVID-19 decision-making processes [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ], our study aimed to broaden this understanding and, thus, support the strengthening of public health emergency preparedness in Canada, and globally.

Specifically, based on our findings on evidence-based public health practice, we found that decision-makers clearly emphasized ‘evidence-based’ or ‘evidence-informed’ as meaning ‘scientific’ evidence. They acknowledged other forms of evidence such as professional expertise and contextual information as influencing factors. We identified four key points related to the process of evidence-use in BC's COVID-19 decision-making, with broader implications as well:

Role Differences: The tensions we observed primarily related to a lack of clarity among the various agencies involved as to their respective roles and responsibilities in a public health emergency, a finding that aligns with research on evidence-use in prior pandemics in Canada [ 29 ]. Relatedly, scientists and policy-makers experienced challenges with communication and information-flow between one another and the public, which may reflect their different values and standards, framing of issues and goals, and language [ 30 ].

Barriers to Evidence-Use: Coordination and consistency in how data are collected across jurisdictions reportedly impeded efficiency and timeliness of decision-making. Lancaster and Rhodes (2020) suggest that evidence itself should be treated as a process, rather than a commodity, in evidence-based practice [ 31 ]. Thus, shifting the dialogue from 'barriers to evidence use' to an approach that fosters dialogue across different forms of evidence and different actors in the process may be beneficial.

Use of Evidence in Public Health versus Medicine: Evidence-based public health can be conflated with the concept of evidence-based medicine, though these are distinct in the type of information that needs to be considered. While ‘research evidence’ was the primary type of evidence used, other important types of evidence informed policy decisions in the COVID-19 public health emergency—for example, previous experience, public values, and preferences. This concurs with Brownson’s (2009) framework of factors driving decision-making in evidence-based public health [ 32 ]. Namely, that a balance between multiple factors, situated in particular environmental and organizational context, shapes decision-making: 1) best available research evidence; 2) clients'/population characteristics, state, needs, values, and preferences; and 3) resources, including a practitioner’s expertise. Thus, any evaluation of evidence-use in public health policy must take into consideration this multiplicity of factors at play, and draw on frameworks specific to public health [ 33 ]. Moreover, public health decision-making requires much more attention to behavioural factors and non-clinical impacts, which is distinct from the largely biology-focused lens of evidence-based medicine.

Transparency: Many participants emphasized a lack of explanation about why certain decisions were made and a lack of understanding about who was involved in decisions and how those decisions were made. This point was confirmed by a recent report on lessons learned in BC during the COVID-19 pandemic in which the authors describe " the desire to know more about the reasons why decisions were taken " as a " recurring theme " (13:66). These findings point to a need for clear and transparent mechanisms for channeling evidence, irrespective of the form used, into public health crisis decision-making.

Our findings also pointed to challenges associated with the infrastructure for utilizing research evidence in BC policy-making, specifically a need for more centralized authority on the research side of the public health emergency response to avoid duplication of efforts and more effectively synthesize findings for efficient use. Yet, as a participant questioned, what is the realistic role of research in a public health crisis response? Generally, most evidence used to inform crisis response measures is local epidemiological data or modelling data [ 7 ]. As corroborated by our findings, challenges exist in coordinating data collection and synthesis of these local data across jurisdictions to inform 'real-time' decision-making, let alone to feed into primary research studies [ 34 ].

On the other hand, as was the case in the COVID-19 pandemic, a 'high noise' research environment soon became another challenge as data became available to researchers. Various mechanisms have been established to try and address these challenges amid the COVID-19 pandemic, both to synthesize scientific evidence globally and to create channels for research evidence to support timely decision-making. For instance: 1) research networks and collaborations are working to coordinate research efforts (e.g., COVID-END network [ 35 ]); 2) independent research panels or committees within jurisdictions provide scientific advice to inform decision-making; and 3) research foundations, funding agencies, and platforms for knowledge mobilization (e.g., academic journals) continue to streamline funding through targeted calls for COVID-19 research grant proposals, or for publication of COVID-19 research articles. While our findings describe the varied forms of evidence used in COVID-19 policy-making—beyond scientific evidence—they also point to the opportunity for further investments in infrastructure that coordinates, streamlines, and strengthens collaborations between health researchers and decision-makers that results in timely uptake of results into policy decisions.

Finally, in considering these findings, it is important to note the study's scope and limitations: We focused on evidence use in a single public health emergency, in a single province. Future research could expand this inquiry to a multi-site analysis of evidence-use in pandemic policy-making, with an eye to synthesizing lessons learned and best practices. Additionally, our sample of participants included only one elected official, so perspectives were limited from this type of role. The majority of participants were health officials who primarily referred to and discussed evidence as ‘scientific’ or research-based evidence. Further work could explore the facilitators and barriers to evidence-use from the perspectives of elected officials and Ministry personnel, particularly with respect to the forms of evidence—considered broadly—and other varied inputs, that shape decision-making in the public sphere. This could include a more in-depth examination of policy implementation and how the potential societal consequences of implementation factor into public health decision-making.

We found that the policy decisions made during the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic were perceived by actors in BC's response as informed by—not always based on—scientific evidence, specifically; however, decision-makers also considered other contextual factors and drew on prior pandemic-related experience to inform decision-making, as is common in evidence-based public health practice [ 32 ]. The respondents' experiences point to specific areas that need to be considered in planning for future public health emergencies, including information flow between policy-makers and researchers, coordination in how data are collected, and transparency in how decisions are made—all of which reflect a need to improve communication. Furthermore, shifting the discourse from evidence as a commodity to evidence-use as a process will be helpful in addressing barriers to evidence-use, as well as increasing understanding about the public health decision-making process as distinct from clinical medicine. Finally, there is a critical need for clear mechanisms that channel evidence (whether ‘scientific’, research-based, or otherwise) into health crisis decision-making, including identifying and communicating the decision-making process to those producing and synthesizing evidence. The COVID-19 pandemic experience is an opportunity to reflect on what needs to be done to guild our public health systems for the future [ 36 , 37 ]. Understanding and responding to the complexities of decision-making as we move forward, particularly with respect to the synthesis and use of evidence, can contribute to strengthening preparedness for future public health emergencies.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available to maintain the confidentiality of research participants.

The terms 'evidence-informed' and 'evidence-based' decision-making are used throughout this paper, though are distinct. The term 'evidence-informed' suggests that evidence is used and considered, though not necessarily solely determinative in decision-making [ 38 ].

The Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) works with the Ministry of Health (MOH) and regional health authorities to oversee the coordination and delivery of programs.

The Office of the Provincial Health Officer (PHO) has binding legal authority in the case of an emergency, and responsibility to monitor the health of BC’s population and provide independent advice to Ministers and public offices on public health issues.

The British Columbia Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC) is a program of the PHSA and provides provincial and national disease surveillance, detection, treatment, prevention, and consultation.

Abbreviations

British Columbia

British Columbia Centre for Disease Control

Coronavirus Disease 2019

Medical Health Officer

Ministry of Health

Provincial Health Officer

Provincial Health Services Authority

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus—2

University of British Columbia

Rubin O, Errett NA, Upshur R, Baekkeskov E. The challenges facing evidence-based decision making in the initial response to COVID-19. Scand J Public Health. 2021;49(7):790–6.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Williams GA, Ulla Díez SM, Figueras J, Lessof S, Ulla SM. Translating evidence into policy during the COVID-19 pandemic: bridging science and policy (and politics). Eurohealth (Lond). 2020;26(2):29–48.

Google Scholar  

Vickery J, Atkinson P, Lin L, Rubin O, Upshur R, Yeoh EK, et al. Challenges to evidence-informed decision-making in the context of pandemics: qualitative study of COVID-19 policy advisor perspectives. BMJ Glob Heal. 2022;7(4):1–10.

Piper J, Gomis B, Lee K. “Guided by science and evidence”? The politics of border management in Canada’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Polit Sci. 2022;4

Cairney P. The UK government’s COVID-19 policy: what does “Guided by the science” mean in practice? Front Polit Sci. 2021;3(March):1–14.

Colman E, Wanat M, Goossens H, Tonkin-Crine S, Anthierens S. Following the science? Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries. BMJ Glob Heal. 2021;6(9):1–11.

Salajan A, Tsolova S, Ciotti M, Suk JE. To what extent does evidence support decision making during infectious disease outbreaks? A scoping literature review. Evid Policy. 2020;16(3):453–75.

Article   Google Scholar  

Cairney P. The UK government’s COVID-19 policy: assessing evidence-informed policy analysis in real time. Br Polit. 2021;16(1):90–116.

Lancaster K, Rhodes T, Rosengarten M. Making evidence and policy in public health emergencies: lessons from COVID-19 for adaptive evidence-making and intervention. Evid Policy. 2020;16(3):477–90.

Yang K. What can COVID-19 tell us about evidence-based management? Am Rev Public Adm. 2020;50(6–7):706–12.

Parkhurst J. The politics of evidence: from evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence. Abingdon: Routledge; 2017.

Office of the Prime Minister. Minister of Health Mandate Letter [Internet]. 2021. https://pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-letters/2021/12/16/minister-health-mandate-letter

de Faye B, Perrin D, Trumpy C. COVID-19 lessons learned review: Final report. Victoria, BC; 2022.

First Nations Health Authority. Evolving vaccination plans is science in action: Dr. Bonnie Henry. First Nations Health Authority. 2021.

BC Stats. 2021 Sub-provincial population estimates highlights. Vol. 2021. Victoria, BC; 2022.

Michael Smith Health Research BC [Internet]. 2023. healthresearchbc.ca. Accessed 25 Jan 2023.

Michael Smith Health Research BC. SRAC [Internet]. 2023. https://healthresearchbc.ca/strategic-provincial-advisory-committee-srac/ . Accessed 25 Jan 2023.

Brubacher LJ, Hasan MZ, Sriram V, Keidar S, Wu A, Cheng M, et al. Investigating the influence of institutions, politics, organizations, and governance on the COVID-19 response in British Columbia, Canada: a jurisdictional case study protocol. Heal Res Policy Syst. 2022;20(1):1–10.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.

DeCuir-Gunby JT, Marshall PL, McCulloch AW. Developing and using a codebook for the analysis of interview data: an example from a professional development research project. Field Methods. 2011;23(2):136–55.

Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(117):1–8.

Creswell JW, Miller DL. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Pract. 2000;39(3):124–30.

Sackett D. How to read clinical journals: I. Why to read them and how to start reading them critically. Can Med Assoc J. 1981;1245:555–8.

Evidence Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA Netw. 1992;268(17):2420–5.

Allin S, Fitzpatrick T, Marchildon GP, Quesnel-Vallée A. The federal government and Canada’s COVID-19 responses: from “we’re ready, we’re prepared” to “fires are burning.” Heal Econ Policy Law. 2022;17(1):76–94.

Bollyky TJ, Hulland EN, Barber RM, Collins JK, Kiernan S, Moses M, et al. Pandemic preparedness and COVID-19: an exploratory analysis of infection and fatality rates, and contextual factors associated with preparedness in 177 countries, from Jan 1, 2020, to Sept 30, 2021. Lancet. 2022;6736(22):1–24.

Kuhlmann S, Hellström M, Ramberg U, Reiter R. Tracing divergence in crisis governance: responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, Germany and Sweden compared. Int Rev Adm Sci. 2021;87(3):556–75.

Haldane V, De Foo C, Abdalla SM, Jung AS, Tan M, Wu S, et al. Health systems resilience in managing the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons from 28 countries. Nat Med. 2021;27(6):964–80.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Rosella LC, Wilson K, Crowcroft NS, Chu A, Upshur R, Willison D, et al. Pandemic H1N1 in Canada and the use of evidence in developing public health policies—a policy analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2013;83:1–9.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Saner M. A map of the interface between science & policy. Ottawa, Ontario; 2007. Report No.: January 1.

Lancaster K, Rhodes T. What prevents health policy being “evidence-based”? New ways to think about evidence, policy and interventions in health. Br Med Bull. 2020;135(1):38–49.

Brownson RC, Fielding JE, Maylahn CM. Evidence-based public health: a fundamental concept for public health practice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30:175–201.

Rychetnik L, Frommer M, Hawe P, Shiell A. Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002;56:119–27.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Khan Y, Brown A, Shannon T, Gibson J, Généreux M, Henry B, et al. Public health emergency preparedness: a framework to promote resilience. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1–16.

COVID-19 Evidence Network to Support Decision-Making. COVID-END [Internet]. 2023. https://www.mcmasterforum.org/networks/covid-end . Accessed 25 Jan 2023.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Moving forward from the COVID-19 pandemic: 10 opportunities for strengthening Canada’s public health systems. 2022.

Di Ruggiero E, Bhatia D, Umar I, Arpin E, Champagne C, Clavier C, et al. Governing for the public’s health: Governance options for a strengthened and renewed public health system in Canada. 2022.

Adjoa Kumah E, McSherry R, Bettany-Saltikov J, Hamilton S, Hogg J, Whittaker V, et al. Evidence-informed practice versus evidence-based practice educational interventions for improving knowledge, attitudes, understanding, and behavior toward the application of evidence into practice: a comprehensive systematic review of undergraduate studen. Campbell Syst Rev. 2019;15(e1015):1–19.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our gratitude to current and former members of the University of British Columbia Working Group on Health Systems Response to COVID-19 who contributed to various aspects of this study, including Shelly Keidar, Kristina Jenei, Sydney Whiteford, Dr. Md Zabir Hasan, Dr. David M. Patrick, Dr. Maxwell Cameron, Mahrukh Zahid, Dr. Yoel Kornreich, Dr. Tammi Whelan, Austin Wu, Shivangi Khanna, and Candice Ruck.

Financial support for this work was generously provided by the University of British Columbia's Faculty of Medicine (Grant No. GR004683) and Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies (Grant No. GR016648), as well as a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Operating Grant (Grant No. GR019157). These funding bodies were not involved in the design of the study, the collection, analysis or interpretation of data, or in the writing of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Laura Jane Brubacher, Chris Y. Lovato, Veena Sriram, Michael Cheng & Peter Berman

School of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada

Laura Jane Brubacher

School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Veena Sriram

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

CYL, PB, and VS obtained funding for and designed the study. LJB, MC, and PB conducted data collection. LJB and VS analyzed the qualitative data. CYL and LJB collaboratively wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Jane Brubacher .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This case study received the approval of the UBC Behavioural Research Ethics Board (Certificate # H20-02136). Participants provided written informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Semi-structured interview guide [* = questions used for this specific study]

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Brubacher, L.J., Lovato, C.Y., Sriram, V. et al. The use of evidence to guide decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic: divergent perspectives from a qualitative case study in British Columbia, Canada. Health Res Policy Sys 22 , 66 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01146-2

Download citation

Received : 08 February 2023

Accepted : 29 April 2024

Published : 03 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01146-2

Share this article

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

• Decision-making
• Public health
• Policy-making
• Qualitative

Health Research Policy and Systems

ISSN: 1478-4505

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

AI on Trial: Legal Models Hallucinate in 1 out of 6 (or More) Benchmarking Queries

A new study reveals the need for benchmarking and public evaluations of AI tools in law.

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are rapidly transforming the practice of law. Nearly  three quarters of lawyers plan on using generative AI for their work, from sifting through mountains of case law to drafting contracts to reviewing documents to writing legal memoranda. But are these tools reliable enough for real-world use?

Large language models have a documented tendency to “hallucinate,” or make up false information. In one highly-publicized case, a New York lawyer  faced sanctions for citing ChatGPT-invented fictional cases in a legal brief;  many similar cases have since been reported. And our  previous study of general-purpose chatbots found that they hallucinated between 58% and 82% of the time on legal queries, highlighting the risks of incorporating AI into legal practice. In his  2023 annual report on the judiciary , Chief Justice Roberts took note and warned lawyers of hallucinations. 

Across all areas of industry, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is seen and promoted as the solution for reducing hallucinations in domain-specific contexts. Relying on RAG, leading legal research services have released AI-powered legal research products that they claim  “avoid” hallucinations and guarantee  “hallucination-free” legal citations. RAG systems promise to deliver more accurate and trustworthy legal information by integrating a language model with a database of legal documents. Yet providers have not provided hard evidence for such claims or even precisely defined “hallucination,” making it difficult to assess their real-world reliability.

AI-Driven Legal Research Tools Still Hallucinate

In a new  preprint study by  Stanford RegLab and  HAI researchers, we put the claims of two providers, LexisNexis (creator of Lexis+ AI) and Thomson Reuters (creator of Westlaw AI-Assisted Research and Ask Practical Law AI)), to the test. We show that their tools do reduce errors compared to general-purpose AI models like GPT-4. That is a substantial improvement and we document instances where these tools provide sound and detailed legal research. But even these bespoke legal AI tools still hallucinate an alarming amount of the time: the Lexis+ AI and Ask Practical Law AI systems produced incorrect information more than 17% of the time, while Westlaw’s AI-Assisted Research hallucinated more than 34% of the time.

Read the full study, Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools

To conduct our study, we manually constructed a pre-registered dataset of over 200 open-ended legal queries, which we designed to probe various aspects of these systems’ performance.

Broadly, we investigated (1) general research questions (questions about doctrine, case holdings, or the bar exam); (2) jurisdiction or time-specific questions (questions about circuit splits and recent changes in the law); (3) false premise questions (questions that mimic a user having a mistaken understanding of the law); and (4) factual recall questions (questions about simple, objective facts that require no legal interpretation). These questions are designed to reflect a wide range of query types and to constitute a challenging real-world dataset of exactly the kinds of queries where legal research may be needed the most.

Figure 1: Comparison of hallucinated (red) and incomplete (yellow) answers across generative legal research tools.

These systems can hallucinate in one of two ways. First, a response from an AI tool might just be  incorrect —it describes the law incorrectly or makes a factual error. Second, a response might be  misgrounded —the AI tool describes the law correctly, but cites a source which does not in fact support its claims.

Given the critical importance of authoritative sources in legal research and writing, the second type of hallucination may be even more pernicious than the outright invention of legal cases. A citation might be “hallucination-free” in the narrowest sense that the citation  exists , but that is not the only thing that matters. The core promise of legal AI is that it can streamline the time-consuming process of identifying relevant legal sources. If a tool provides sources that  seem authoritative but are in reality irrelevant or contradictory, users could be misled. They may place undue trust in the tool's output, potentially leading to erroneous legal judgments and conclusions.

Figure 2:  Top left: Example of a hallucinated response by Westlaw's AI-Assisted Research product. The system makes up a statement in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure that does not exist (and Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) held that a closely related bankruptcy deadline provision was not jurisdictional). Top right: Example of a hallucinated response by LexisNexis's Lexis+ AI. Casey and its undue burden standard were overruled by the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022); the correct answer is rational basis review. Bottom left: Example of a hallucinated response by Thomson Reuters's Ask Practical Law AI. The system fails to correct the user’s mistaken premise—in reality, Justice Ginsburg joined the Court's landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage—and instead provides additional false information about the case. Bottom right: Example of a hallucinated response from GPT-4, which generates a statutory provision that has not been codified.

RAG Is Not a Panacea

Figure 3: An overview of the retrieval-augmentation generation (RAG) process. Given a user query (left), the typical process consists of two steps: (1) retrieval (middle), where the query is embedded with natural language processing and a retrieval system takes embeddings and retrieves the relevant documents (e.g., Supreme Court cases); and (2) generation (right), where the retrieved texts are fed to the language model to generate the response to the user query. Any of the subsidiary steps may introduce error and hallucinations into the generated response. (Icons are courtesy of FlatIcon.)

Under the hood, these new legal AI tools use retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to produce their results, a method that many tout as a potential solution to the hallucination problem. In theory, RAG allows a system to first  retrieve the relevant source material and then use it to  generate the correct response. In practice, however, we show that even RAG systems are not hallucination-free. 

We identify several challenges that are particularly unique to RAG-based legal AI systems, causing hallucinations. 

First, legal retrieval is hard. As any lawyer knows, finding the appropriate (or best) authority can be no easy task. Unlike other domains, the law is not entirely composed of verifiable  facts —instead, law is built up over time by judges writing  opinions . This makes identifying the set of documents that definitively answer a query difficult, and sometimes hallucinations occur for the simple reason that the system’s retrieval mechanism fails.

Second, even when retrieval occurs, the document that is retrieved can be an inapplicable authority. In the American legal system, rules and precedents differ across jurisdictions and time periods; documents that might be relevant on their face due to semantic similarity to a query may actually be inapposite for idiosyncratic reasons that are unique to the law. Thus, we also observe hallucinations occurring when these RAG systems fail to identify the truly binding authority. This is particularly problematic as areas where the law is in flux is precisely where legal research matters the most. One system, for instance, incorrectly recited the “undue burden” standard for abortion restrictions as good law, which was overturned in  Dobbs (see Figure 2). 

Third, sycophancy—the tendency of AI to agree with the user's incorrect assumptions—also poses unique risks in legal settings. One system, for instance, naively agreed with the question’s premise that Justice Ginsburg dissented in  Obergefell , the case establishing a right to same-sex marriage, and answered that she did so based on her views on international copyright. (Justice Ginsburg did not dissent in  Obergefell and, no, the case had nothing to do with copyright.) Notwithstanding that answer, here there are optimistic results. Our tests showed that both systems generally navigated queries based on false premises effectively. But when these systems do agree with erroneous user assertions, the implications can be severe—particularly for those hoping to use these tools to increase access to justice among  pro se and under-resourced litigants.

Responsible Integration of AI Into Law Requires Transparency

Ultimately, our results highlight the need for rigorous and transparent benchmarking of legal AI tools. Unlike other domains, the use of AI in law remains alarmingly opaque: the tools we study provide no systematic access, publish few details about their models, and report no evaluation results at all.

This opacity makes it exceedingly challenging for lawyers to procure and acquire AI products. The large law firm  Paul Weiss spent nearly a year and a half testing a product, and did not develop “hard metrics” because checking the AI system was so involved that it “makes any efficiency gains difficult to measure.” The absence of rigorous evaluation metrics makes responsible adoption difficult, especially for practitioners that are less resourced than Paul Weiss. 

The lack of transparency also threatens lawyers’ ability to comply with ethical and professional responsibility requirements. The bar associations of  California ,  New York , and  Florida have all recently released guidance on lawyers’ duty of supervision over work products created with AI tools. And as of May 2024,  more than 25 federal judges have issued standing orders instructing attorneys to disclose or monitor the use of AI in their courtrooms.

Without access to evaluations of the specific tools and transparency around their design, lawyers may find it impossible to comply with these responsibilities. Alternatively, given the high rate of hallucinations, lawyers may find themselves having to verify each and every proposition and citation provided by these tools, undercutting the stated efficiency gains that legal AI tools are supposed to provide.

Our study is meant in no way to single out LexisNexis and Thomson Reuters. Their products are far from the only legal AI tools that stand in need of transparency—a slew of startups offer similar products and have  made   similar   claims , but they are available on even more restricted bases, making it even more difficult to assess how they function. 

Based on what we know, legal hallucinations have not been solved.The legal profession should turn to public benchmarking and rigorous evaluations of AI tools. 

This story was updated on Thursday, May 30, 2024, to include analysis of a third AI tool, Westlaw’s AI-Assisted Research.

Paper authors: Varun Magesh is a research fellow at Stanford RegLab. Faiz Surani is a research fellow at Stanford RegLab. Matthew Dahl is a joint JD/PhD student in political science at Yale University and graduate student affiliate of Stanford RegLab. Mirac Suzgun is a joint JD/PhD student in computer science at Stanford University and a graduate student fellow at Stanford RegLab. Christopher D. Manning is Thomas M. Siebel Professor of Machine Learning, Professor of Linguistics and Computer Science, and Senior Fellow at HAI. Daniel E. Ho is the William Benjamin Scott and Luna M. Scott Professor of Law, Professor of Political Science, Professor of Computer Science (by courtesy), Senior Fellow at HAI, Senior Fellow at SIEPR, and Director of the RegLab at Stanford University. 

More News Topics

The state of AI in early 2024: Gen AI adoption spikes and starts to generate value

If 2023 was the year the world discovered generative AI (gen AI) , 2024 is the year organizations truly began using—and deriving business value from—this new technology. In the latest McKinsey Global Survey  on AI, 65 percent of respondents report that their organizations are regularly using gen AI, nearly double the percentage from our previous survey just ten months ago. Respondents’ expectations for gen AI’s impact remain as high as they were last year , with three-quarters predicting that gen AI will lead to significant or disruptive change in their industries in the years ahead.

About the authors

This article is a collaborative effort by Alex Singla , Alexander Sukharevsky , Lareina Yee , and Michael Chui , with Bryce Hall , representing views from QuantumBlack, AI by McKinsey, and McKinsey Digital.

Organizations are already seeing material benefits from gen AI use, reporting both cost decreases and revenue jumps in the business units deploying the technology. The survey also provides insights into the kinds of risks presented by gen AI—most notably, inaccuracy—as well as the emerging practices of top performers to mitigate those challenges and capture value.

AI adoption surges

Interest in generative AI has also brightened the spotlight on a broader set of AI capabilities. For the past six years, AI adoption by respondents’ organizations has hovered at about 50 percent. This year, the survey finds that adoption has jumped to 72 percent (Exhibit 1). And the interest is truly global in scope. Our 2023 survey found that AI adoption did not reach 66 percent in any region; however, this year more than two-thirds of respondents in nearly every region say their organizations are using AI. 1 Organizations based in Central and South America are the exception, with 58 percent of respondents working for organizations based in Central and South America reporting AI adoption. Looking by industry, the biggest increase in adoption can be found in professional services. 2 Includes respondents working for organizations focused on human resources, legal services, management consulting, market research, R&D, tax preparation, and training.

Also, responses suggest that companies are now using AI in more parts of the business. Half of respondents say their organizations have adopted AI in two or more business functions, up from less than a third of respondents in 2023 (Exhibit 2).

Gen AI adoption is most common in the functions where it can create the most value

Most respondents now report that their organizations—and they as individuals—are using gen AI. Sixty-five percent of respondents say their organizations are regularly using gen AI in at least one business function, up from one-third last year. The average organization using gen AI is doing so in two functions, most often in marketing and sales and in product and service development—two functions in which previous research  determined that gen AI adoption could generate the most value 3 “ The economic potential of generative AI: The next productivity frontier ,” McKinsey, June 14, 2023. —as well as in IT (Exhibit 3). The biggest increase from 2023 is found in marketing and sales, where reported adoption has more than doubled. Yet across functions, only two use cases, both within marketing and sales, are reported by 15 percent or more of respondents.

Gen AI also is weaving its way into respondents’ personal lives. Compared with 2023, respondents are much more likely to be using gen AI at work and even more likely to be using gen AI both at work and in their personal lives (Exhibit 4). The survey finds upticks in gen AI use across all regions, with the largest increases in Asia–Pacific and Greater China. Respondents at the highest seniority levels, meanwhile, show larger jumps in the use of gen Al tools for work and outside of work compared with their midlevel-management peers. Looking at specific industries, respondents working in energy and materials and in professional services report the largest increase in gen AI use.

Investments in gen AI and analytical AI are beginning to create value

The latest survey also shows how different industries are budgeting for gen AI. Responses suggest that, in many industries, organizations are about equally as likely to be investing more than 5 percent of their digital budgets in gen AI as they are in nongenerative, analytical-AI solutions (Exhibit 5). Yet in most industries, larger shares of respondents report that their organizations spend more than 20 percent on analytical AI than on gen AI. Looking ahead, most respondents—67 percent—expect their organizations to invest more in AI over the next three years.

Where are those investments paying off? For the first time, our latest survey explored the value created by gen AI use by business function. The function in which the largest share of respondents report seeing cost decreases is human resources. Respondents most commonly report meaningful revenue increases (of more than 5 percent) in supply chain and inventory management (Exhibit 6). For analytical AI, respondents most often report seeing cost benefits in service operations—in line with what we found last year —as well as meaningful revenue increases from AI use in marketing and sales.

Inaccuracy: The most recognized and experienced risk of gen AI use

As businesses begin to see the benefits of gen AI, they’re also recognizing the diverse risks associated with the technology. These can range from data management risks such as data privacy, bias, or intellectual property (IP) infringement to model management risks, which tend to focus on inaccurate output or lack of explainability. A third big risk category is security and incorrect use.

Respondents to the latest survey are more likely than they were last year to say their organizations consider inaccuracy and IP infringement to be relevant to their use of gen AI, and about half continue to view cybersecurity as a risk (Exhibit 7).

Conversely, respondents are less likely than they were last year to say their organizations consider workforce and labor displacement to be relevant risks and are not increasing efforts to mitigate them.

In fact, inaccuracy— which can affect use cases across the gen AI value chain , ranging from customer journeys and summarization to coding and creative content—is the only risk that respondents are significantly more likely than last year to say their organizations are actively working to mitigate.

Some organizations have already experienced negative consequences from the use of gen AI, with 44 percent of respondents saying their organizations have experienced at least one consequence (Exhibit 8). Respondents most often report inaccuracy as a risk that has affected their organizations, followed by cybersecurity and explainability.

Our previous research has found that there are several elements of governance that can help in scaling gen AI use responsibly, yet few respondents report having these risk-related practices in place. 4 “ Implementing generative AI with speed and safety ,” McKinsey Quarterly , March 13, 2024. For example, just 18 percent say their organizations have an enterprise-wide council or board with the authority to make decisions involving responsible AI governance, and only one-third say gen AI risk awareness and risk mitigation controls are required skill sets for technical talent.

Bringing gen AI capabilities to bear

The latest survey also sought to understand how, and how quickly, organizations are deploying these new gen AI tools. We have found three archetypes for implementing gen AI solutions : takers use off-the-shelf, publicly available solutions; shapers customize those tools with proprietary data and systems; and makers develop their own foundation models from scratch. 5 “ Technology’s generational moment with generative AI: A CIO and CTO guide ,” McKinsey, July 11, 2023. Across most industries, the survey results suggest that organizations are finding off-the-shelf offerings applicable to their business needs—though many are pursuing opportunities to customize models or even develop their own (Exhibit 9). About half of reported gen AI uses within respondents’ business functions are utilizing off-the-shelf, publicly available models or tools, with little or no customization. Respondents in energy and materials, technology, and media and telecommunications are more likely to report significant customization or tuning of publicly available models or developing their own proprietary models to address specific business needs.

Respondents most often report that their organizations required one to four months from the start of a project to put gen AI into production, though the time it takes varies by business function (Exhibit 10). It also depends upon the approach for acquiring those capabilities. Not surprisingly, reported uses of highly customized or proprietary models are 1.5 times more likely than off-the-shelf, publicly available models to take five months or more to implement.

Gen AI high performers are excelling despite facing challenges

Gen AI is a new technology, and organizations are still early in the journey of pursuing its opportunities and scaling it across functions. So it’s little surprise that only a small subset of respondents (46 out of 876) report that a meaningful share of their organizations’ EBIT can be attributed to their deployment of gen AI. Still, these gen AI leaders are worth examining closely. These, after all, are the early movers, who already attribute more than 10 percent of their organizations’ EBIT to their use of gen AI. Forty-two percent of these high performers say more than 20 percent of their EBIT is attributable to their use of nongenerative, analytical AI, and they span industries and regions—though most are at organizations with less than $1 billion in annual revenue. The AI-related practices at these organizations can offer guidance to those looking to create value from gen AI adoption at their own organizations.

To start, gen AI high performers are using gen AI in more business functions—an average of three functions, while others average two. They, like other organizations, are most likely to use gen AI in marketing and sales and product or service development, but they’re much more likely than others to use gen AI solutions in risk, legal, and compliance; in strategy and corporate finance; and in supply chain and inventory management. They’re more than three times as likely as others to be using gen AI in activities ranging from processing of accounting documents and risk assessment to R&D testing and pricing and promotions. While, overall, about half of reported gen AI applications within business functions are utilizing publicly available models or tools, gen AI high performers are less likely to use those off-the-shelf options than to either implement significantly customized versions of those tools or to develop their own proprietary foundation models.

What else are these high performers doing differently? For one thing, they are paying more attention to gen-AI-related risks. Perhaps because they are further along on their journeys, they are more likely than others to say their organizations have experienced every negative consequence from gen AI we asked about, from cybersecurity and personal privacy to explainability and IP infringement. Given that, they are more likely than others to report that their organizations consider those risks, as well as regulatory compliance, environmental impacts, and political stability, to be relevant to their gen AI use, and they say they take steps to mitigate more risks than others do.

Gen AI high performers are also much more likely to say their organizations follow a set of risk-related best practices (Exhibit 11). For example, they are nearly twice as likely as others to involve the legal function and embed risk reviews early on in the development of gen AI solutions—that is, to “ shift left .” They’re also much more likely than others to employ a wide range of other best practices, from strategy-related practices to those related to scaling.

In addition to experiencing the risks of gen AI adoption, high performers have encountered other challenges that can serve as warnings to others (Exhibit 12). Seventy percent say they have experienced difficulties with data, including defining processes for data governance, developing the ability to quickly integrate data into AI models, and an insufficient amount of training data, highlighting the essential role that data play in capturing value. High performers are also more likely than others to report experiencing challenges with their operating models, such as implementing agile ways of working and effective sprint performance management.

About the research

The online survey was in the field from February 22 to March 5, 2024, and garnered responses from 1,363 participants representing the full range of regions, industries, company sizes, functional specialties, and tenures. Of those respondents, 981 said their organizations had adopted AI in at least one business function, and 878 said their organizations were regularly using gen AI in at least one function. To adjust for differences in response rates, the data are weighted by the contribution of each respondent’s nation to global GDP.

Alex Singla and Alexander Sukharevsky  are global coleaders of QuantumBlack, AI by McKinsey, and senior partners in McKinsey’s Chicago and London offices, respectively; Lareina Yee  is a senior partner in the Bay Area office, where Michael Chui , a McKinsey Global Institute partner, is a partner; and Bryce Hall  is an associate partner in the Washington, DC, office.

They wish to thank Kaitlin Noe, Larry Kanter, Mallika Jhamb, and Shinjini Srivastava for their contributions to this work.

This article was edited by Heather Hanselman, a senior editor in McKinsey’s Atlanta office.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Moving past gen AI’s honeymoon phase: Seven hard truths for CIOs to get from pilot to scale

A generative AI reset: Rewiring to turn potential into value in 2024

Implementing generative AI with speed and safety

• Open access
• Published: 27 June 2011

The case study approach

• Sarah Crowe 1 ,
• Kathrin Cresswell 2 ,
• Ann Robertson 2 ,
• Guro Huby 3 ,
• Anthony Avery 1 &
• Aziz Sheikh 2  

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume  11 , Article number:  100 ( 2011 ) Cite this article

784k Accesses

1048 Citations

37 Altmetric

Metrics details

The case study approach allows in-depth, multi-faceted explorations of complex issues in their real-life settings. The value of the case study approach is well recognised in the fields of business, law and policy, but somewhat less so in health services research. Based on our experiences of conducting several health-related case studies, we reflect on the different types of case study design, the specific research questions this approach can help answer, the data sources that tend to be used, and the particular advantages and disadvantages of employing this methodological approach. The paper concludes with key pointers to aid those designing and appraising proposals for conducting case study research, and a checklist to help readers assess the quality of case study reports.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The case study approach is particularly useful to employ when there is a need to obtain an in-depth appreciation of an issue, event or phenomenon of interest, in its natural real-life context. Our aim in writing this piece is to provide insights into when to consider employing this approach and an overview of key methodological considerations in relation to the design, planning, analysis, interpretation and reporting of case studies.

The illustrative 'grand round', 'case report' and 'case series' have a long tradition in clinical practice and research. Presenting detailed critiques, typically of one or more patients, aims to provide insights into aspects of the clinical case and, in doing so, illustrate broader lessons that may be learnt. In research, the conceptually-related case study approach can be used, for example, to describe in detail a patient's episode of care, explore professional attitudes to and experiences of a new policy initiative or service development or more generally to 'investigate contemporary phenomena within its real-life context' [ 1 ]. Based on our experiences of conducting a range of case studies, we reflect on when to consider using this approach, discuss the key steps involved and illustrate, with examples, some of the practical challenges of attaining an in-depth understanding of a 'case' as an integrated whole. In keeping with previously published work, we acknowledge the importance of theory to underpin the design, selection, conduct and interpretation of case studies[ 2 ]. In so doing, we make passing reference to the different epistemological approaches used in case study research by key theoreticians and methodologists in this field of enquiry.

This paper is structured around the following main questions: What is a case study? What are case studies used for? How are case studies conducted? What are the potential pitfalls and how can these be avoided? We draw in particular on four of our own recently published examples of case studies (see Tables 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 ) and those of others to illustrate our discussion[ 3 – 7 ].

What is a case study?

A case study is a research approach that is used to generate an in-depth, multi-faceted understanding of a complex issue in its real-life context. It is an established research design that is used extensively in a wide variety of disciplines, particularly in the social sciences. A case study can be defined in a variety of ways (Table 5 ), the central tenet being the need to explore an event or phenomenon in depth and in its natural context. It is for this reason sometimes referred to as a "naturalistic" design; this is in contrast to an "experimental" design (such as a randomised controlled trial) in which the investigator seeks to exert control over and manipulate the variable(s) of interest.

Stake's work has been particularly influential in defining the case study approach to scientific enquiry. He has helpfully characterised three main types of case study: intrinsic , instrumental and collective [ 8 ]. An intrinsic case study is typically undertaken to learn about a unique phenomenon. The researcher should define the uniqueness of the phenomenon, which distinguishes it from all others. In contrast, the instrumental case study uses a particular case (some of which may be better than others) to gain a broader appreciation of an issue or phenomenon. The collective case study involves studying multiple cases simultaneously or sequentially in an attempt to generate a still broader appreciation of a particular issue.

These are however not necessarily mutually exclusive categories. In the first of our examples (Table 1 ), we undertook an intrinsic case study to investigate the issue of recruitment of minority ethnic people into the specific context of asthma research studies, but it developed into a instrumental case study through seeking to understand the issue of recruitment of these marginalised populations more generally, generating a number of the findings that are potentially transferable to other disease contexts[ 3 ]. In contrast, the other three examples (see Tables 2 , 3 and 4 ) employed collective case study designs to study the introduction of workforce reconfiguration in primary care, the implementation of electronic health records into hospitals, and to understand the ways in which healthcare students learn about patient safety considerations[ 4 – 6 ]. Although our study focusing on the introduction of General Practitioners with Specialist Interests (Table 2 ) was explicitly collective in design (four contrasting primary care organisations were studied), is was also instrumental in that this particular professional group was studied as an exemplar of the more general phenomenon of workforce redesign[ 4 ].

What are case studies used for?

According to Yin, case studies can be used to explain, describe or explore events or phenomena in the everyday contexts in which they occur[ 1 ]. These can, for example, help to understand and explain causal links and pathways resulting from a new policy initiative or service development (see Tables 2 and 3 , for example)[ 1 ]. In contrast to experimental designs, which seek to test a specific hypothesis through deliberately manipulating the environment (like, for example, in a randomised controlled trial giving a new drug to randomly selected individuals and then comparing outcomes with controls),[ 9 ] the case study approach lends itself well to capturing information on more explanatory ' how ', 'what' and ' why ' questions, such as ' how is the intervention being implemented and received on the ground?'. The case study approach can offer additional insights into what gaps exist in its delivery or why one implementation strategy might be chosen over another. This in turn can help develop or refine theory, as shown in our study of the teaching of patient safety in undergraduate curricula (Table 4 )[ 6 , 10 ]. Key questions to consider when selecting the most appropriate study design are whether it is desirable or indeed possible to undertake a formal experimental investigation in which individuals and/or organisations are allocated to an intervention or control arm? Or whether the wish is to obtain a more naturalistic understanding of an issue? The former is ideally studied using a controlled experimental design, whereas the latter is more appropriately studied using a case study design.

Case studies may be approached in different ways depending on the epistemological standpoint of the researcher, that is, whether they take a critical (questioning one's own and others' assumptions), interpretivist (trying to understand individual and shared social meanings) or positivist approach (orientating towards the criteria of natural sciences, such as focusing on generalisability considerations) (Table 6 ). Whilst such a schema can be conceptually helpful, it may be appropriate to draw on more than one approach in any case study, particularly in the context of conducting health services research. Doolin has, for example, noted that in the context of undertaking interpretative case studies, researchers can usefully draw on a critical, reflective perspective which seeks to take into account the wider social and political environment that has shaped the case[ 11 ].

How are case studies conducted?

Here, we focus on the main stages of research activity when planning and undertaking a case study; the crucial stages are: defining the case; selecting the case(s); collecting and analysing the data; interpreting data; and reporting the findings.

Defining the case

Carefully formulated research question(s), informed by the existing literature and a prior appreciation of the theoretical issues and setting(s), are all important in appropriately and succinctly defining the case[ 8 , 12 ]. Crucially, each case should have a pre-defined boundary which clarifies the nature and time period covered by the case study (i.e. its scope, beginning and end), the relevant social group, organisation or geographical area of interest to the investigator, the types of evidence to be collected, and the priorities for data collection and analysis (see Table 7 )[ 1 ]. A theory driven approach to defining the case may help generate knowledge that is potentially transferable to a range of clinical contexts and behaviours; using theory is also likely to result in a more informed appreciation of, for example, how and why interventions have succeeded or failed[ 13 ].

For example, in our evaluation of the introduction of electronic health records in English hospitals (Table 3 ), we defined our cases as the NHS Trusts that were receiving the new technology[ 5 ]. Our focus was on how the technology was being implemented. However, if the primary research interest had been on the social and organisational dimensions of implementation, we might have defined our case differently as a grouping of healthcare professionals (e.g. doctors and/or nurses). The precise beginning and end of the case may however prove difficult to define. Pursuing this same example, when does the process of implementation and adoption of an electronic health record system really begin or end? Such judgements will inevitably be influenced by a range of factors, including the research question, theory of interest, the scope and richness of the gathered data and the resources available to the research team.

Selecting the case(s)

The decision on how to select the case(s) to study is a very important one that merits some reflection. In an intrinsic case study, the case is selected on its own merits[ 8 ]. The case is selected not because it is representative of other cases, but because of its uniqueness, which is of genuine interest to the researchers. This was, for example, the case in our study of the recruitment of minority ethnic participants into asthma research (Table 1 ) as our earlier work had demonstrated the marginalisation of minority ethnic people with asthma, despite evidence of disproportionate asthma morbidity[ 14 , 15 ]. In another example of an intrinsic case study, Hellstrom et al.[ 16 ] studied an elderly married couple living with dementia to explore how dementia had impacted on their understanding of home, their everyday life and their relationships.

For an instrumental case study, selecting a "typical" case can work well[ 8 ]. In contrast to the intrinsic case study, the particular case which is chosen is of less importance than selecting a case that allows the researcher to investigate an issue or phenomenon. For example, in order to gain an understanding of doctors' responses to health policy initiatives, Som undertook an instrumental case study interviewing clinicians who had a range of responsibilities for clinical governance in one NHS acute hospital trust[ 17 ]. Sampling a "deviant" or "atypical" case may however prove even more informative, potentially enabling the researcher to identify causal processes, generate hypotheses and develop theory.

In collective or multiple case studies, a number of cases are carefully selected. This offers the advantage of allowing comparisons to be made across several cases and/or replication. Choosing a "typical" case may enable the findings to be generalised to theory (i.e. analytical generalisation) or to test theory by replicating the findings in a second or even a third case (i.e. replication logic)[ 1 ]. Yin suggests two or three literal replications (i.e. predicting similar results) if the theory is straightforward and five or more if the theory is more subtle. However, critics might argue that selecting 'cases' in this way is insufficiently reflexive and ill-suited to the complexities of contemporary healthcare organisations.

The selected case study site(s) should allow the research team access to the group of individuals, the organisation, the processes or whatever else constitutes the chosen unit of analysis for the study. Access is therefore a central consideration; the researcher needs to come to know the case study site(s) well and to work cooperatively with them. Selected cases need to be not only interesting but also hospitable to the inquiry [ 8 ] if they are to be informative and answer the research question(s). Case study sites may also be pre-selected for the researcher, with decisions being influenced by key stakeholders. For example, our selection of case study sites in the evaluation of the implementation and adoption of electronic health record systems (see Table 3 ) was heavily influenced by NHS Connecting for Health, the government agency that was responsible for overseeing the National Programme for Information Technology (NPfIT)[ 5 ]. This prominent stakeholder had already selected the NHS sites (through a competitive bidding process) to be early adopters of the electronic health record systems and had negotiated contracts that detailed the deployment timelines.

It is also important to consider in advance the likely burden and risks associated with participation for those who (or the site(s) which) comprise the case study. Of particular importance is the obligation for the researcher to think through the ethical implications of the study (e.g. the risk of inadvertently breaching anonymity or confidentiality) and to ensure that potential participants/participating sites are provided with sufficient information to make an informed choice about joining the study. The outcome of providing this information might be that the emotive burden associated with participation, or the organisational disruption associated with supporting the fieldwork, is considered so high that the individuals or sites decide against participation.

In our example of evaluating implementations of electronic health record systems, given the restricted number of early adopter sites available to us, we sought purposively to select a diverse range of implementation cases among those that were available[ 5 ]. We chose a mixture of teaching, non-teaching and Foundation Trust hospitals, and examples of each of the three electronic health record systems procured centrally by the NPfIT. At one recruited site, it quickly became apparent that access was problematic because of competing demands on that organisation. Recognising the importance of full access and co-operative working for generating rich data, the research team decided not to pursue work at that site and instead to focus on other recruited sites.

Collecting the data

In order to develop a thorough understanding of the case, the case study approach usually involves the collection of multiple sources of evidence, using a range of quantitative (e.g. questionnaires, audits and analysis of routinely collected healthcare data) and more commonly qualitative techniques (e.g. interviews, focus groups and observations). The use of multiple sources of data (data triangulation) has been advocated as a way of increasing the internal validity of a study (i.e. the extent to which the method is appropriate to answer the research question)[ 8 , 18 – 21 ]. An underlying assumption is that data collected in different ways should lead to similar conclusions, and approaching the same issue from different angles can help develop a holistic picture of the phenomenon (Table 2 )[ 4 ].

Brazier and colleagues used a mixed-methods case study approach to investigate the impact of a cancer care programme[ 22 ]. Here, quantitative measures were collected with questionnaires before, and five months after, the start of the intervention which did not yield any statistically significant results. Qualitative interviews with patients however helped provide an insight into potentially beneficial process-related aspects of the programme, such as greater, perceived patient involvement in care. The authors reported how this case study approach provided a number of contextual factors likely to influence the effectiveness of the intervention and which were not likely to have been obtained from quantitative methods alone.

In collective or multiple case studies, data collection needs to be flexible enough to allow a detailed description of each individual case to be developed (e.g. the nature of different cancer care programmes), before considering the emerging similarities and differences in cross-case comparisons (e.g. to explore why one programme is more effective than another). It is important that data sources from different cases are, where possible, broadly comparable for this purpose even though they may vary in nature and depth.

Analysing, interpreting and reporting case studies

Making sense and offering a coherent interpretation of the typically disparate sources of data (whether qualitative alone or together with quantitative) is far from straightforward. Repeated reviewing and sorting of the voluminous and detail-rich data are integral to the process of analysis. In collective case studies, it is helpful to analyse data relating to the individual component cases first, before making comparisons across cases. Attention needs to be paid to variations within each case and, where relevant, the relationship between different causes, effects and outcomes[ 23 ]. Data will need to be organised and coded to allow the key issues, both derived from the literature and emerging from the dataset, to be easily retrieved at a later stage. An initial coding frame can help capture these issues and can be applied systematically to the whole dataset with the aid of a qualitative data analysis software package.

The Framework approach is a practical approach, comprising of five stages (familiarisation; identifying a thematic framework; indexing; charting; mapping and interpretation) , to managing and analysing large datasets particularly if time is limited, as was the case in our study of recruitment of South Asians into asthma research (Table 1 )[ 3 , 24 ]. Theoretical frameworks may also play an important role in integrating different sources of data and examining emerging themes. For example, we drew on a socio-technical framework to help explain the connections between different elements - technology; people; and the organisational settings within which they worked - in our study of the introduction of electronic health record systems (Table 3 )[ 5 ]. Our study of patient safety in undergraduate curricula drew on an evaluation-based approach to design and analysis, which emphasised the importance of the academic, organisational and practice contexts through which students learn (Table 4 )[ 6 ].

Case study findings can have implications both for theory development and theory testing. They may establish, strengthen or weaken historical explanations of a case and, in certain circumstances, allow theoretical (as opposed to statistical) generalisation beyond the particular cases studied[ 12 ]. These theoretical lenses should not, however, constitute a strait-jacket and the cases should not be "forced to fit" the particular theoretical framework that is being employed.

When reporting findings, it is important to provide the reader with enough contextual information to understand the processes that were followed and how the conclusions were reached. In a collective case study, researchers may choose to present the findings from individual cases separately before amalgamating across cases. Care must be taken to ensure the anonymity of both case sites and individual participants (if agreed in advance) by allocating appropriate codes or withholding descriptors. In the example given in Table 3 , we decided against providing detailed information on the NHS sites and individual participants in order to avoid the risk of inadvertent disclosure of identities[ 5 , 25 ].

What are the potential pitfalls and how can these be avoided?

The case study approach is, as with all research, not without its limitations. When investigating the formal and informal ways undergraduate students learn about patient safety (Table 4 ), for example, we rapidly accumulated a large quantity of data. The volume of data, together with the time restrictions in place, impacted on the depth of analysis that was possible within the available resources. This highlights a more general point of the importance of avoiding the temptation to collect as much data as possible; adequate time also needs to be set aside for data analysis and interpretation of what are often highly complex datasets.

Case study research has sometimes been criticised for lacking scientific rigour and providing little basis for generalisation (i.e. producing findings that may be transferable to other settings)[ 1 ]. There are several ways to address these concerns, including: the use of theoretical sampling (i.e. drawing on a particular conceptual framework); respondent validation (i.e. participants checking emerging findings and the researcher's interpretation, and providing an opinion as to whether they feel these are accurate); and transparency throughout the research process (see Table 8 )[ 8 , 18 – 21 , 23 , 26 ]. Transparency can be achieved by describing in detail the steps involved in case selection, data collection, the reasons for the particular methods chosen, and the researcher's background and level of involvement (i.e. being explicit about how the researcher has influenced data collection and interpretation). Seeking potential, alternative explanations, and being explicit about how interpretations and conclusions were reached, help readers to judge the trustworthiness of the case study report. Stake provides a critique checklist for a case study report (Table 9 )[ 8 ].

Conclusions

The case study approach allows, amongst other things, critical events, interventions, policy developments and programme-based service reforms to be studied in detail in a real-life context. It should therefore be considered when an experimental design is either inappropriate to answer the research questions posed or impossible to undertake. Considering the frequency with which implementations of innovations are now taking place in healthcare settings and how well the case study approach lends itself to in-depth, complex health service research, we believe this approach should be more widely considered by researchers. Though inherently challenging, the research case study can, if carefully conceptualised and thoughtfully undertaken and reported, yield powerful insights into many important aspects of health and healthcare delivery.

Yin RK: Case study research, design and method. 2009, London: Sage Publications Ltd., 4

Google Scholar  

Keen J, Packwood T: Qualitative research; case study evaluation. BMJ. 1995, 311: 444-446.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Sheikh A, Halani L, Bhopal R, Netuveli G, Partridge M, Car J, et al: Facilitating the Recruitment of Minority Ethnic People into Research: Qualitative Case Study of South Asians and Asthma. PLoS Med. 2009, 6 (10): 1-11.

Article   Google Scholar  

Pinnock H, Huby G, Powell A, Kielmann T, Price D, Williams S, et al: The process of planning, development and implementation of a General Practitioner with a Special Interest service in Primary Care Organisations in England and Wales: a comparative prospective case study. Report for the National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R&D (NCCSDO). 2008, [ http://www.sdo.nihr.ac.uk/files/project/99-final-report.pdf ]

Robertson A, Cresswell K, Takian A, Petrakaki D, Crowe S, Cornford T, et al: Prospective evaluation of the implementation and adoption of NHS Connecting for Health's national electronic health record in secondary care in England: interim findings. BMJ. 2010, 41: c4564-

Pearson P, Steven A, Howe A, Sheikh A, Ashcroft D, Smith P, the Patient Safety Education Study Group: Learning about patient safety: organisational context and culture in the education of healthcare professionals. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010, 15: 4-10. 10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009052.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

van Harten WH, Casparie TF, Fisscher OA: The evaluation of the introduction of a quality management system: a process-oriented case study in a large rehabilitation hospital. Health Policy. 2002, 60 (1): 17-37. 10.1016/S0168-8510(01)00187-7.

Stake RE: The art of case study research. 1995, London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Sheikh A, Smeeth L, Ashcroft R: Randomised controlled trials in primary care: scope and application. Br J Gen Pract. 2002, 52 (482): 746-51.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

King G, Keohane R, Verba S: Designing Social Inquiry. 1996, Princeton: Princeton University Press

Doolin B: Information technology as disciplinary technology: being critical in interpretative research on information systems. Journal of Information Technology. 1998, 13: 301-311. 10.1057/jit.1998.8.

George AL, Bennett A: Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. 2005, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Eccles M, the Improved Clinical Effectiveness through Behavioural Research Group (ICEBeRG): Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions. Implementation Science. 2006, 1: 1-8. 10.1186/1748-5908-1-1.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Netuveli G, Hurwitz B, Levy M, Fletcher M, Barnes G, Durham SR, Sheikh A: Ethnic variations in UK asthma frequency, morbidity, and health-service use: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2005, 365 (9456): 312-7.

Sheikh A, Panesar SS, Lasserson T, Netuveli G: Recruitment of ethnic minorities to asthma studies. Thorax. 2004, 59 (7): 634-

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hellström I, Nolan M, Lundh U: 'We do things together': A case study of 'couplehood' in dementia. Dementia. 2005, 4: 7-22. 10.1177/1471301205049188.

Som CV: Nothing seems to have changed, nothing seems to be changing and perhaps nothing will change in the NHS: doctors' response to clinical governance. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 2005, 18: 463-477. 10.1108/09513550510608903.

Lincoln Y, Guba E: Naturalistic inquiry. 1985, Newbury Park: Sage Publications

Barbour RS: Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?. BMJ. 2001, 322: 1115-1117. 10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115.

Mays N, Pope C: Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000, 320: 50-52. 10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50.

Mason J: Qualitative researching. 2002, London: Sage

Brazier A, Cooke K, Moravan V: Using Mixed Methods for Evaluating an Integrative Approach to Cancer Care: A Case Study. Integr Cancer Ther. 2008, 7: 5-17. 10.1177/1534735407313395.

Miles MB, Huberman M: Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 1994, CA: Sage Publications Inc., 2

Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N: Analysing qualitative data. Qualitative research in health care. BMJ. 2000, 320: 114-116. 10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114.

Cresswell KM, Worth A, Sheikh A: Actor-Network Theory and its role in understanding the implementation of information technology developments in healthcare. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010, 10 (1): 67-10.1186/1472-6947-10-67.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Malterud K: Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet. 2001, 358: 483-488. 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05627-6.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Yin R: Case study research: design and methods. 1994, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing, 2

Yin R: Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health Serv Res. 1999, 34: 1209-1224.

Green J, Thorogood N: Qualitative methods for health research. 2009, Los Angeles: Sage, 2

Howcroft D, Trauth E: Handbook of Critical Information Systems Research, Theory and Application. 2005, Cheltenham, UK: Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar

Book   Google Scholar  

Blakie N: Approaches to Social Enquiry. 1993, Cambridge: Polity Press

Doolin B: Power and resistance in the implementation of a medical management information system. Info Systems J. 2004, 14: 343-362. 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00176.x.

Bloomfield BP, Best A: Management consultants: systems development, power and the translation of problems. Sociological Review. 1992, 40: 533-560.

Shanks G, Parr A: Positivist, single case study research in information systems: A critical analysis. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems. 2003, Naples

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/100/prepub

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the participants and colleagues who contributed to the individual case studies that we have drawn on. This work received no direct funding, but it has been informed by projects funded by Asthma UK, the NHS Service Delivery Organisation, NHS Connecting for Health Evaluation Programme, and Patient Safety Research Portfolio. We would also like to thank the expert reviewers for their insightful and constructive feedback. Our thanks are also due to Dr. Allison Worth who commented on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Division of Primary Care, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

Sarah Crowe & Anthony Avery

Centre for Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Kathrin Cresswell, Ann Robertson & Aziz Sheikh

School of Health in Social Science, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Crowe .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

AS conceived this article. SC, KC and AR wrote this paper with GH, AA and AS all commenting on various drafts. SC and AS are guarantors.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A. et al. The case study approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 11 , 100 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100

Download citation

Received : 29 November 2010

Accepted : 27 June 2011

Published : 27 June 2011

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100

Share this article

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

• Case Study Approach
• Electronic Health Record System
• Case Study Design
• Case Study Site
• Case Study Report

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Cancer Researchers Begin Large Long-Term Study of Black Women

The American Cancer Society hopes to enroll 100,000 women and follow them for three decades to discover what’s causing higher case and death rates.

By Roni Caryn Rabin

The American Cancer Society has begun an ambitious, far-reaching study focusing on a population that has long been overlooked, despite high rates of cancer and cancer-related deaths: Black women.

The initiative, called VOICES of Black Women, is believed to be the first long-term population study of its size to zero in specifically on the factors driving cancer prevalence and deaths among Black women.

Researchers plan to enroll 100,000 Black women without cancer, ages 25 to 55, in Washington, D.C., and 20 states where most Black American women reside. The subjects will be surveyed twice a year about their behaviors, environmental exposures and life experiences, and followed for 30 years; any cancers they may develop will be tracked.

Similar studies by the American Cancer Society in the past yielded critical lessons about what causes cancer — for example, identifying cigarette smoking as a cause of lung cancer and linking red- and processed-meat consumption to increased risk of colon cancer.

While some earlier studies have included large numbers of Black women, the research wasn’t able to “hone in on the specific drivers of cancer in that population,” said Dr. Alpa Patel, senior vice president of population science at the society and co-principal investigator of the VOICES study, along with Dr. Lauren McCullough.

“In general population studies, you tend to ask questions that are going to be applicable to the majority of the population,” she said. “So going deeply into the lived experiences of discrimination, bias, systematic issues, environmental influences and cultural aspects of health-related behaviors, and how the narratives around them are shaped in different populations — those types of unique aspects of understanding what contributes to cancer in a population weren’t being asked about.”

Women will be surveyed on their use of personal care products, for example, including chemical hair straighteners, which have been implicated in some cancers . The researchers will track stressors related to the physical environment, and factors such as neighborhood walkability, crime, air pollution, access to healthy food and proximity to liquor stores and establishments that sell cigarettes.

Black women have the highest death rates and lowest survival rates for many cancers of any racial or ethnic group. Black men and women have higher rates of colorectal cancer than white Americans do, for example.

Black women die of uterine cancer at twice the rate of white women, are twice as likely to be diagnosed with stomach cancer and more than twice as likely to die of it. They are also 40 percent more likely to die of breast cancer.

Persistently high deaths rates among Black breast cancer patients were one reason the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force cited recently for lowering the age for starting mammography screening to 40 again from 50 .

The racial disparities in breast cancer survival are relatively new. Until the 1970s, there was no racial disparity in breast cancer outcomes between Black and white women, Dr. Patel said.

“We know now there are more aggressive tumors, especially at younger ages in Black women compared to white women, and we don’t fully understand why,” she said.

Recruitment for the study started late last year with a pilot launch in Atlanta and Hampton Roads, Va., and enrollment expanded to other states and Washington in May.

Eligible participants must identify as Black, be assigned female at birth or identify as women, have no history of cancer (aside from common basal or squamous skin cancers) and be between the ages of 25 and 55.

No medication, clinical testing, treatment or lifestyles changes are needed in the study.

Breana Berry, 30, who works in public health near Atlanta, signed up as soon as she could, as did her mother, Jacquelyn Berry, 53, who is a caregiver to a friend with breast cancer and lost her husband to pancreatic cancer three years ago, when he was 53.

“My husband complained of stomach issues for two years, and was misdiagnosed and misdiagnosed and misdiagnosed,” she said. He died shortly after getting the proper diagnosis, which was advanced pancreatic cancer.

“I’m interested in the whys,” she said. “Why are there such huge disparities? This is not an overnight study, you have to track people for a long time. It’s a huge commitment, but I’m in. I know our voices will make a difference — to my great-great-grandkids.”

Roni Caryn Rabin is a Times health reporter focused on maternal and child health, racial and economic disparities in health care, and the influence of money on medicine. More about Roni Caryn Rabin

• Open access
• Published: 29 May 2024

Cannabis use in a Canadian long-term care facility: a case study

• Lynda G. Balneaves 1 , 4 ,
• Abeer A. Alraja 1 ,
• Genevieve Thompson 1 ,
• Jamie L. Penner 1 ,
• Philip St. John 2 ,
• Daniella Scerbo 1 &
• Joanne van Dyck 3  

BMC Geriatrics volume  24 , Article number:  467 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

313 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Following the legalization of cannabis in Canada in 2018, people aged 65 + years reported a significant increase in cannabis consumption. Despite limited research with older adults regarding the therapeutic benefits of cannabis, there is increasing interest and use among this population, particularly for those who have chronic illnesses or are at end of life. Long-term Care (LTC) facilities are required to reflect on their care and policies related to the use of cannabis, and how to address residents’ cannabis use within what they consider to be their home.

Using an exploratory case study design, this study aimed to understand how one LTC facility in western Canada addressed the major policy shift related to medical and non-medical cannabis. The case study, conducted November 2021 to August 2022, included an environmental scan of existing policies and procedures related to cannabis use at the LTC facility, a quantitative survey of Healthcare Providers’ (HCP) knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to cannabis, and qualitative interviews with HCPs and administrators. Quantitative survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data.

A total of 71 HCPs completed the survey and 12 HCPs, including those who functioned as administrators, participated in the interview. The largest knowledge gaps were related to dosing and creating effective treatment plans for residents using cannabis. About half of HCPs reported providing care in the past month to a resident who was taking medical cannabis (54.9%) and a quarter (25.4%) to a resident that was taking non-medical cannabis. The majority of respondents (81.7%) reported that lack of knowledge, education or information about medical cannabis were barriers to medical cannabis use in LTC. From the qualitative data, we identified four key findings regarding HCPs’ attitudes, cannabis access and use, barriers to cannabis use, and non-medical cannabis use.

Conclusions

With the legalization of medical and non-medical cannabis in jurisdictions around the world, LTC facilities will be obligated to develop policies, procedures and healthcare services that are able to accommodate residents’ use of cannabis in a respectful and evidence-informed manner.

Peer Review reports

In October 2018, Canada became the second country to legalize non-medical cannabis [ 1 ]. Despite the increasing interest in cannabis among Canadians of all ages [ 2 ], the percentage of individuals over the age of 15 years reporting cannabis use a year following legalization remained relatively unchanged at 18% [3]. The only age group to report a significant increase in cannabis consumption was those aged 65 + years, with 7.6% reporting cannabis use in the past 3 months [ 3 ] in 2019 compared to 4% in 2018. This upward trend in cannabis use among Canadians 65 years or older was also observed in 2021 [ 4 ].

This increase may reflect a growing acceptance of cannabis among older populations who were previously dissuaded from taking cannabis due to its illegal status as well as limited accessibility through legal means. In addition, the rise in cannabis use among older adults may reflect a harm reduction approach, substituting cannabis for other recreational substances with substantial health risks, such as alcohol [ 5 ]. Moreover, the belief in the potential therapeutic benefits of cannabis [ 6 , 7 , 8 ], such as the management of pain and sleep issues, is becoming increasingly prevalent among older adults. There has been limited research, however, among older adults in Canada to understand this progressive trend in cannabis use and the influencing factors [ 9 ].

Canada has been a world leader in cannabis legalization, launching a federal medical cannabis program in 2001. Since this time, the medical cannabis program has undergone numerous revisions, including how authorization is obtained, what types of products are available, and where cannabis is purchased. Currently, Canadians can seek medical authorization from either a physician or a nurse practitioner, and access a variety of cannabis products, including dried flower, capsules, and oils, which are purchased online through a licensed producer (LP). Some individuals also apply for a personal or designated grow license to produce their own supply of dried cannabis. Outside of the medical authorization program, individuals can access non-medical cannabis through an authorized storefront. It is estimated that over 1 million Canadians are using cannabis for therapeutic purposes [4], with 247,548 individuals officially registered as of March 2022 [ 10 ]. Among the 479,400 individuals over the age of 65 who reported cannabis use in the third quarter of 2019, 52% utilized cannabis exclusively for medical reasons, and another 24% reported using cannabis for both recreational and medical purposes [ 3 ].

Despite the growing interest in cannabis as a therapeutic agent, there has been limited human research due to its illegal status in many countries, as well as the challenges posed by the complexity of the cannabis plant compared to single agent, pharmaceutical forms of cannabis (e.g., nabilone) [ 11 , 12 ]. Notwithstanding these challenges, there is emergent research on the potential role of cannabis-based medicines in the management of health conditions common among older adults, including osteoarthritis [ 13 ], sleep disorders [ 14 ], dementia [ 15 ], and Parkinson’s [ 16 , 17 ], which are also prevalent among individuals residing at long-term care (LTC) facilities. For example, several studies have found cannabis-based medicines to significantly reduce neuropsychiatric symptoms and improve quality of life among people living with Alzheimer’s Disease [ 18 , 19 , 20 ]. Cannabis may also play a significant role at end of life in not only alleviating physical symptoms, such as pain, nausea and vomiting, and appetite loss, but also addressing the emotional and existential issues that may arise [ 21 ]. It has also been proposed that cannabis may have a therapeutic role among rehabilitative populations who often reside in LTC settings, including those with spinal cord injuries [ 22 , 23 ] and traumatic brain injury [ 24 ]. The evidence base surrounding cannabis as a therapeutic agent, however, remains limited with few large randomized clinical trials conducted to date.

Cannabis is not a benign substance and may pose risk to older adults, especially those living with frailty or cognitive impairment. Given the known cognitive effects of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a cannabinoid found in many forms of cannabis, adults living in long-term and rehabilitative care settings may experience somnolence, confusion, and fatigue [ 25 ]. Cannabis high in THC may also negatively impact motor coordination and increase the risk of falls, especially among those with impaired balance and walking ability [ 25 ]. As research advances on cannabis, there has been growing awareness of its negative interactions with certain medications [ 26 ], which can pose a significant issue among older clients prone to polypharmacy. Lastly, numerous health conditions are contraindicated with cannabis use, including heart disease, and a personal or family history of psychosis, schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder [ 27 ].

Despite limited research with older adults regarding the therapeutic benefits of cannabis, there is increasing interest and use among this population, particularly for those who have chronic illnesses. As adults age, they are more likely to experience multimorbidity, and a significant number of older adults spend their last years of life residing in a LTC facility [ 28 , 29 ]. LTC facilities are, thus, placed in a unique position. While these facilities are considered medical institutions that provide evidence-informed supportive health care, they have also become home for individuals who are no longer able to reside safely in the community. Increasingly, these types of facilities are challenged to create home-like environments and offer residents the opportunity and autonomy to engage in potentially risky health behaviours [ 30 ]; behaviours that individuals in the community have the independence and legal right to choose, such as alcohol or tobacco consumption. With the legalization of non-medical cannabis and the growing interest in the potential of cannabis to manage challenging health conditions, it behooves LTC facilities to reflect on their care and policies related to the use of legal substances, such as cannabis, and how to address residents’ cannabis use within what they consider to be their home.

The overarching aim of this case study was to understand how one LTC facility, and its healthcare professionals (HCPs) and administrators, addressed the major policy shift in Canada related to medical and non-medical cannabis. Specific research questions included: (1) What are the experiences and perceptions of HCPs and administrators regarding the use of medical and non-medical cannabis at LTC settings?; (2) What are the perceived barriers/facilitators to medical and non-medical cannabis use at LTC facilities from the perspective of HCPs and administrators?; and (3) What are the educational needs, attitudes, and practices of HCPs at LTC facilities related to medical and non-medical cannabis?

Research design and setting

An exploratory case study design was utilized in this study. This type of case study is used to explore those situations in which the phenomenon being evaluated has no clear or single set of outcomes [ 31 ]. The case selected for this study was a large LTC facility in Western Canada. This 387-bed residential facility provides 24/7 care to a diverse population, including older adults with cognitive and physical disabilities, individuals recovering from stroke and traumatic brain injury, and those requiring end-of-life care. Individuals with these various conditions may reside in several units, including palliative care, rehabilitation, personal care home, and complex chronic care. The case study included an environmental scan of existing policies and procedures related to medical and non-medical cannabis use at the LTC facility, a quantitative survey of HCPs’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to medical and non-medical cannabis, and qualitative interviews with HCPs and administrators. The qualitative interviews were informed by qualitative descriptive methodology [ 32 ] and explored HCPs’ and administrators’ experiences, beliefs, perceptions regarding cannabis use in LTC, and the related barriers and facilitators.

Sample and recruitment

For the survey, a convenience sample was drawn from the entire population of accredited HCPs working in the selected facility. Eligibility criteria included being 18 + years, able to read/speak English, currently employed and providing care at the LTC facility, and able to provide informed written consent. Study participants were recruited through an emailed letter of invitation, posters placed in staff areas, and in-person presentations by a research assistant. From participants who took part in the survey, a subsample of HCPs, including administrators, who expressed interest in taking part in an interview was selected. The data collection period was from November 2021 and August 2022.

Data collection

For the environmental scan, facility administrators were approached via an emailed letter and asked to identify relevant policies and procedures related to cannabis use within their LTC facility. Policies relevant to both residents’ use of cannabis and HCPs’ practice related to medical and non-medical cannabis were requested. Provincial and federal cannabis policies were also collected.

The survey was modified from a questionnaire utilized in two national studies that examined Canadian physicians’ and nurse practitioners’ knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of the associated barriers and facilitators related to medical cannabis use, as well as their preferences regarding medical cannabis education [ 33 , 34 ]. This survey has been found to be internally consistent, with Cronbach’s alphas of 0.70 to 0.92 reported across subscales [ 33 , 34 ]. Slight word changes were made to reflect the fact that individuals living in LTC facility are referred to as residents, not patients, and the name of the facility was used to orientate the questions towards HCPs’ attitudes and practices related to cannabis use within the LTC setting.

Survey items were added that assessed HCPs’ practices related to addressing residents’ and family members’ questions about cannabis, as well as requests for medical cannabis authorization and follow-up care. A demographic survey that assessed gender, age, professional designation, years in practice, area(s) of practice, and education related to medical cannabis was included. The survey was available in hard copy (Supplementary Material 1 ) as well as online through the software program, Qualtrics®.

An interview guide was developed by the research team, which included a facility administrator and HCP, and was informed by the literature and previous cannabis research conducted by members of the research team [ 35 ] (Supplementary Material 2 ). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all but one interview was conducted by the project coordinator (AAA) via Zoom, with one interview occurring over the phone. The interviews were 20–30 min in length and were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Both the survey and interview were completed at times preferred by the respondents, including within and outside work time. No honoraria were provided for study participants.

Data analysis

The policies identified through the environmental scan were reviewed and summarized in table format, with similarities, contradictions and gaps identified.

Quantitative survey data was uploaded into the statistical program, SPSS® v.25. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic information, knowledge about medical cannabis and related attitudes, perceived barriers and facilitators, practice experiences, and preferred educational approaches.

Perceived knowledge gap was calculated by computing the difference between perceived current and desired knowledge levels (i.e., “the level of knowledge you desire” about medical cannabis). Rather than using averages, the knowledge gap was calculated based on how much greater an individual’s desired knowledge level was compared to their current knowledge level [ 36 ]. Only response pairs (i.e., current and desired knowledge) were used, and responses where the desired level was lower than the current level were excluded. To further elucidate, the knowledge gap was calculated by having each respondent’s current knowledge level response subtracted from their desired knowledge level response.

Prior to the onset of qualitative data analysis, the accuracy of the transcripts was checked by listening to the digital recordings. Content analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data [ 37 ], with two team members (AAA and LGB) independently reading the transcripts and developing a preliminary coding scheme. Constant comparison of new and existing data ensured consistency, relevance, and comprehensiveness of emerging codes. Several strategies were applied to ensure rigour in the qualitative analysis. To increase credibility, a team member with expertise in qualitative inquiry (LGB) monitored the qualitative data and its analysis. Confirmability was addressed by using the participants’ own words throughout the process of data analysis, interpretation, and description. An audit trail was kept documenting the activities of the study, including data analysis decisions.

Environmental scan of cannabis-related policies

Administrators at the LTC facility provided the research team with the policies and procedures that addressed the management and use of medical and non-medical cannabis within the facility. The guiding policy adopted by the LTC facility was a generic policy applicable to all sites and facilities governed by a regional health authority. This policy, entitled “Patient Use of Medical Cannabis (Marijuana)” was issued in June 2020. The policy, which aimed to provide individuals with “reasonable access to medical cannabis”, outlined numerous issues that might arise with institutional cannabis use, including “ordering, labeling, packaging, storage, security, administration, documentation and monitoring requirements for the use of medical cannabis”. Key aspects of the policy are summarised in a table found in the Supplementary Material section (Supplementary Material 3 ).

Other relevant policies that were reviewed included the standards of practice issued by the provincial college of nurses and the college of physicians and surgeons [ 38 , 39 , 40 ], which provided direction to HCPs working in LTC about their scope of practice regarding medical and non-medical cannabis. The regional health authority’s smoke-free policy [ 41 ] also informed how inhaled forms of medical and non-medical cannabis were addressed, requiring residents to leave the facility grounds to smoke or vape cannabis. Lastly, the overarching federal Cannabis Act and Regulations provided guidance to both administrators and HCPs regarding the Canadian regulations specific to medical and non-medical cannabis [ 1 , 42 ]. Together, existing facility, regional, and national policies created a context in which cannabis was framed as neither a medicine nor a controlled substance, but something unique and complex that must be navigated by residents, family members and staff in LTC settings.

Quantitative survey

Demographic characteristics.

From the approximately 318 eligible HCPs employed at the LTC facility, a total of 71 participants consented and completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 22.3%. With regards to response rate by profession, pharmacists (50.0%) and social workers (42.9%) were best represented, followed by physicians (23.1%), nurses (21.0%), and PT/OT (11.4%).

Most respondents were women (71.8%), registered nurses (62.0%) and worked within the palliative care unit (76.1%) at the facility. The average age of the sample was 40.9 years and the largest proportion of the sample had worked in the LTC facility for 5 or less years. See Table  1 for additional details.

Knowledge about medical cannabis

HCPs reported being most knowledgeable about the therapeutic potential of cannabis (3.1/5.0), potential risks of medical cannabis (2.9/5.0), and the different ways to administer medical cannabis (2.9/5.0). They reported being least knowledgeable about the dosing of medical cannabis (2.0/5.0), how to create effective treatment plans related to medical cannabis (2.1/5.0), and the similarities and differences between different forms of cannabis products and prescription cannabinoid medications (2.2/5.0). The top three ranked knowledge gaps mirrored the items ranked lowest with regards to knowledge (see Table  2 ). Overall, there was high interest in gaining more medical cannabis knowledge, with all knowledge items scoring greater than 4 on desired knowledge level.

Practice experiences with medical cannabis

About half of HCPs reported providing care in the past month to a resident who was taking medical cannabis (54.9%) and a quarter (25.4%) to a resident that was taking non-medical cannabis. Over 60% had been approached by a resident and/or a family member to discuss the potential use of medical cannabis; however, few HCPs reported initiating these conversations. Moreover, when asked if they felt comfortable discussing medical cannabis, 32.4% of HCPs disagreed (data not shown). Less than 20% reported helping residents, either directly or indirectly, to use medical cannabis and a very small proportion (1.3–2.8%) reported assisting residents’ consumption of non-medical cannabis. With regards to authorizing the use of medical cannabis or prescribing cannabinoid medication, which in Canada can be done by either a physician or nurse practitioner, just over half of physicians reported supporting residents’ access to these types of treatment. See Table  3 for additional details.

Barriers to medical cannabis use in long-term care

Lack of knowledge, education or information about medical cannabis were reported to be barriers to medical cannabis use in LTC by most HCPs (81.7%). Moreover, the uncertain risks and benefits of medical cannabis and the lack of clinical guidelines were also perceived as barriers by 66.2% and 63.4% of HCPs, respectively. The complete list of barriers is presented in Table  4 .

Education about medical cannabis

Most of the HCPs agreed that additional education on medical cannabis would increase their comfort with discussing this treatment option with residents and family members (87.4%; data not shown). With regards to indirectly or directly administering medical cannabis to a resident, most HCPs for which this fell within their scope of practice also reported they would feel more comfortable if they had further education (59.2% and 56.4%, respectively; data not shown).

Over half of HCPs had not received any prior education related to medical cannabis (54.9%). Those that had, received it from conferences or workshops (65.6%), books or journal articles (43.8%) or through a colleague (37.5%). While almost half the sample (49.3%) reported receiving information from peer-reviewed sources, nearly a quarter received information about medical cannabis from a non-peer reviewed source or from a resident or family member. Some participants also received information from a cannabis industry source. Table  5 provides additional details.

The preferred sources of medical cannabis education were online learning programs (i.e., continuing education) (74.6%), monographs (66.2%), and topic-specific one-pagers (64.8%). See Fig.  1 for further details.

Percentage of respondents indicating prefered method of cannabis education*

Qualitative findings

A total of 12 HCPs were interviewed regarding their perceptions and experiences related to medical and non-medical cannabis in the LTC facility. This included 3 HCPs who were administrators, 6 nurses, 1 physician, 1 social worker and 1 pharmacist. Four main themes were identified.

Attitudes regarding medical cannabis: cautious support

There were mixed attitudes regarding the potential role of medical cannabis in general and in LTC populations. While some HCPs felt medical cannabis was a “good idea” for which there was beginning research regarding its health benefits, other HCPs believed additional high-quality evidence was needed prior to medical cannabis becoming a therapeutic option.

I think it’s [medical cannabis] the fair option, it helps some people, but it doesn’t help others. So, I think we need a bit more evidence and a bit more research and having it available sort of allows for that research to occur (Physician; PC07).

There appeared to be greater acceptance for medical cannabis use by individuals at end of life compared to those not considered immediately palliative (i.e., living with dementia, stroke, or traumatic brain injury), the latter of which comprise the majority of the people living in LTC settings. For individuals receiving palliative care, some HCPs perceived medical cannabis to be beneficial in managing pain, nausea, and anxiety, as well as reducing the use of other medications that may be problematic (e.g., opioids) due to their side effects. The potential value of medical cannabis in “adding quality of life and living” at the end of life was also mentioned.

I’m working on the palliative care unit right now. A lot of patients that I’ve seen use it [medical cannabis] for anxiety purposes, or for nausea… some people find beneficial. So, I’ve seen it – people find it helpful for those reasons, and then they have to take less of their other medications. So, if it’s worked well for them and that’s what they prefer to do, then I think it should be an option for people, especially if some people find it beneficial. (Registered nurse; PC03)

Within the context of LTC, several HCPs also spoke of the importance of respecting residents’ autonomy and previous experiences taking medical cannabis. The reality of a LTC facility being a resident’s “home” was particularly influential in HCPs’ support of medical cannabis being included as part of a holistic approach to care.

I guess because people live at [LTC facility’s name], that is their home and if they were at home in the community, they would be able to access it [medical cannabis]. (Registered nurse, PC02)

I think it’s a part of people’s lives. And I think if we’re allowing people to have certain things and keeping it as part of their treatment because if you look at a holistic view, preventing somebody from doing something that they’ve been doing for many years is not going to help them be accepting of other types of therapies. (Pharmacist, PC09)

Some HCPs also perceived medical cannabis as offering an alternative to medical treatments that were not consistently effective in managing challenging health conditions, such as dementia and agitation.

HCPs’ attitudes towards medical cannabis varied across different products and routes of administration. Given the existing smoke-free policy at the facility, HCPs were more supportive of edibles, oils, oral sprays or topical creams and lotions than any form of inhaled medical cannabis (i.e., smoking and vaping). They were concerned not only about lung health, environmental exposure, and maintaining a scent-free facility, but also about how to safely manage vulnerable residents travelling off the facility’s property to smoke or vape.

Medical cannabis access and use: concern, confusion, and limited conversations

According to HCPs interviewed, most residents using medical cannabis obtained their authorization prior to moving to LTC. Individuals who sought authorization after arriving at the facility struggled to have their requests acknowledged or addressed by the health care team. As one nurse shared:

I do remember I had a resident that did ask about it [medical cannabis]. And whenever it was kind of brought up, it didn’t seem to be acknowledged all the time. Or there were people who didn’t like the idea of having a resident on it. (Registered nurse; PC06)

Conversations about medical cannabis were perceived to be severely limited by the culture surrounding medical cannabis at the LTC facility. The lack of open discussion about medical cannabis was seen by some to create conflict and negatively impact the development of trust between residents, family members, and the health care team: “ Without that discussion, it does create conflict within the team and between the physician and family, and perhaps that could impact the trusting relationship” (Administrator; PA03). Further, several HCPs expressed the belief that conversations about non-pharmacological forms of medical cannabis could not be initiated by them due to policy issues; residents who expressed interest but did not have prior authorization were instead directed towards pharmaceutical forms of cannabis.

There have been residents who have asked about using cannabis. And as I said, you can’t initiate it, if they’re going to get it on their own, fair enough. That’s pretty much been the experience I’ve had with residents with just non-pharmaceutical medical cannabis . (Physician, PC07)

The only HCP-initiated conversations about medical cannabis mentioned were those occurring between pharmacists and residents, which focused on the potential side effects, benefits, and “red flags” to watch out for, such as allergic reactions.

HCPs shared that for those residents with authorization, they or a support person were responsible for ordering the medical cannabis product from an LP, which would then send the product to either the resident at the LTC facility or to their support person’s home. The cannabis product was then stored in a locked drawer in the resident’s room if they were self-administering or in a medication room if nursing staff were assisting with administration. According to one pharmacist, the pharmacy department was not permitted, due to existing federal regulations, to either directly order or dispense medical cannabis:

No, we don’t dispense any cannabis. It’s considered resident’s own. So, we don’t acquire it for them. They have to directly be the holders of it and have it provided to them directly. And I think that has more to do with the regulations within Canada, the resident has to have certain type of documentation in order to have medical cannabis. So, it’s directly to them, we’re not able to order it for them or anything like that on their behalf. (Pharmacist; PC09)

With regards to the type of medical cannabis products permitted in the facility, due to non-smoking policies and concerns about safety issues and the “smell”, combustible forms and inhaled routes of administration (i.e., joints, vaporizers, vape pens) were not allowed; instead, ingestible forms were mentioned most frequently by HCPs.

There was some confusion and concerns expressed regarding the storage and disposal of medical cannabis, which may have reflected changes in facility policies over time. Some HCPs expressed concerns about the storage of cannabis in residents’ rooms and the lack of “safeguards” to limit potential diversion and allow an accurate “count” of medical cannabis.

We have to go into our Pyxis machine to retrieve a key to open that drawer. So, by going by that you’re able to know who’s actually accessed the key, but once the key is out you have no idea how many people have used that key and accessed that drawer before it’s gone back. You have no way of knowing how much cannabis has been taken out [of the drawer] or used, because you know there’s no way to measure it. So that’s a huge problem, I find. (Registered nurse; PC01)

This nurse was particularly concerned about the potential risk of being accused of diversion:

I’m not worried about people abusing it, it’s more the worry of being accused. You know, like, if a resident says, ‘why is my cannabis running out already, I thought I had enough for a few more weeks?’ and we’re like, ‘I don’t know’, right? There’s the potential for that sort of thing to happen. (Registered nurse; PC01)

There was also a perception that there was a lack of direction from the facility regarding the appropriate disposal of medical cannabis. Most believed residents or family members were expected to remove any unused product once the resident was no longer at the facility. When such disposal was not possible, the policy was to destroy the cannabis product in a manner similar to narcotics or other controlled substances. However, variations in practice occurred with some HCPs described “throwing it in the trash” or using a medical waste disposal bin with or without a witness.

Barriers to medical cannabis use: safety, stigma and lack of knowledge

Numerous barriers to the use of medical cannabis by LTC residents were identified by HCPs. Foremost, the policies related to how cannabis products were ordered, accessed, stored, and administered were perceived to be complicated and created barriers to residents wanting to take medical cannabis, particularly those without family support. The inability of the LTC facility to order medical cannabis on behalf of a resident was perceived to be especially problematic, as described by one registered nurse:

I know when it became legal, there were a few residents who have inquired about it, but they didn’t have the family resources in place to be able to get it because I believe there’s some hoops that you have to go through to be able to have it medically prescribed in getting it on to the unit. And so, the ones who were interested in it didn’t have those supports in place, so they weren’t able to get it prescribed for them. (Registered nurse; PC05)

The lack of awareness and understanding of the regional policies related to medical cannabis by some of the clinical staff was also seen as being problematic. As one registered nurse shared:

My only concern is that there’s a lot of rules around being able to administer and how it’s [medical cannabis] administered, which can again make things a bit complicated. I would say that’s probably my biggest concern is just it’s hard to remember everything that you have to do when you’re trying to administer it or helping a resident. So, you don’t get involved. (Registered nurse; PC06)

Several HCPs attributed the lack of awareness about cannabis policy to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which overshadowed all other health issues within their facility: “ Everybody’s been so focused on COVID for a year and a half that there hasn’t been really time to really think about or educate on other things. ” (Registered nurse; PC01).

HCPs suggested that more “straight forward” and tailored policies were needed that simplified how medical cannabis was managed. Having facility-specific policies would acknowledge the uniqueness of the LTC population, who may have cognitive impairment, limited social support, and complex healthcare plans. As one nurse shared: “ If it’s a dementia patient, they can’t really administer it on their own. So how do we follow the policy to help the patient take the cannabis? How would we know when they would want to take it PRN?” (Registered nurse; PC03). It was also recommended that the policy that prevented the facility from directly ordering and supplying medical cannabis required revision so that LTC residents were not reliant on family members to gain access. Lastly, several HCPs suggested that medical cannabis policies need to be well advertised and additional training developed for clinical staff to enhance their awareness and comfort level in providing appropriate and supportive care.

There needs to be a training session… staff have to read through them [cannabis policies] and get instructions about them, sort of like a self-learning activity. But that is not part of what we do when orienting. (Registered nurse; PC02)

Another perceived barrier frequently mentioned by HCPs was their lack of knowledge regarding the potential risks and benefits of medical cannabis. There was limited understanding about the effects of medical cannabis, how it may interact with other medications and health conditions, what side effects could arise, as well as basic information about starting dose, titration, and difference between THC and cannabidiol (CBD). Without such information, HCPs were perceived to be very hesitant about recommending or supporting medical cannabis as a treatment alternative for LTC residents:

There’s lots of unknown, that’s the problem. If there were more specifics about the recreational and the medical use of cannabis, then I think health care professionals would be more likely to want to provide it to the residents. But if not, then that’s kind of what’s hindering health care professionals to provide it. (Registered nurse; PC08)

There was also substantial discussion by HCPs regarding the “stigma” that they perceived to exist within the facility regarding medical cannabis. As described by one pharmacist: “ I think the understanding of cannabis, regardless of if it’s medical or anything, it’s still considered in many people’s minds as an illicit drug. It hasn’t shaken that. And I think there’s a lot of stereotypes around the type of people that use cannabis” (Pharmacist; PC09). The stigmatization of medical cannabis was perceived to be particularly pronounced among the medical staff, which led to what was described as a “hands-off approach” with regards to authorizing medical cannabis.

Almost all HCPs and administrators interviewed recommended that education programming and resources for HCPs be developed to address the lingering stigma associated with cannabis and the knowledge gaps that exist about medical cannabis and associated policies. Several participants recommended that education initiatives should first target physicians, who were responsible for authorizing medical cannabis in the facility. Physicians were perceived to need education on when and for whom medical cannabis would be appropriate, the latest evidence regarding efficacy and safety (i.e., drug interactions), and what their obligations and responsibilities were as the authorizing HCP. Participants also thought that all HCPs could benefit from additional training regarding medical cannabis, including the different types of cannabinoids and products, the process of titration, and dosing. Some of the nurses interviewed also expressed the need for education about the legal implications of medical cannabis and their role regarding provision and administration:

I think the legal implications of cannabis use, I think that would be a good focus for the nursing group – so that they understood what their obligations were, what they could be held accountable for, those kinds of things. (Administrator; PA02)

Finally, numerous HCPs spoke of the need for “safeguards” and clear policies and procedures to ensure that clinical staff were aware of what type of medical cannabis products residents were taking, what was the “right dose”, and the possibility of cannabis interacting with other medications. As shared by one pharmacist:

So that we know that this patient is on it because there are potential drug interactions with other things that patients are taking. So, we just have to be cautious and aware that patients are doing this. Because especially right now with studies, there haven’t been a lot of great studies on drug interactions. (Pharmacist; PC09)

Non-medical cannabis use: balancing autonomy and safety

HCPs were asked about their attitudes and experiences about residents’ use of non-medical cannabis in the facility. Two disparate points of view became apparent – those that perceived non-medical cannabis as a legal substance that should be available to LTC residents given the facility was their home and those that saw non-medical cannabis as a stigmatized substance that could lead to problematic use and disruptions in the care environment.

Because it is somebody’s home and so you’re trying to honour and match what their lifestyle and aspects of their life at home were and matching that here [LTC facility]. The bad is, while it is somebody’s home, it’s the next person’s home too, and so it’s trying to balance that, right? In an institutional setting, trying to make it as home-like as possible but, at the same time, you know, monitoring and matching for what everyone’s needs are. (Registered nurse; PA01)

Professionally, I think that it creates issues in terms of trying to police the use of recreational cannabis. In terms of smoking cigarette tobacco, that’s an issue in itself. We’re a non-smoking facility. So, adding cannabis to the mix creates issues…having staff perhaps exposed or other people exposed if people are using cannabis indoors or where they’re not supposed. Or if they want to access and use cannabis outside, who’s going to take them for that? Because that creates exposure too for staff or others who may have to escort them. (Registered nurse; PA03)

HCPs frequently mentioned the complexity of managing residents’ non-medical use of cannabis given the facility’s non-smoking policy that required residents to leave the facility grounds to use inhaled forms of cannabis. With staff unable to transport residents outside, concerns were raised regarding the safety of residents, particularly in the winter months, and who would be responsible for their transfer in and out of the facility as well as monitoring how much cannabis was consumed. In addition, residents’ access to non-medical cannabis was again dependent on having a support person that was able and willing to transport the product to the facility, posing a potential equity issue for some residents:

If someone’s wanting to go smoke outside, then mobility might be an issue. If they don’t have the right wheelchair or family to take them outside for that. If they have the access. Like, if they need family to go and buy it and bring it to them, that could be more of an access issue depending on their family support. (Registered nurse; PC03)

There was specific concern expressed for individuals in the rehabilitation units who may have pre-existing substance use issues. For these individuals, HCPs were concerned that allowing access to non-medical cannabis could add to an already complex care plan. In addition, with many vulnerable residents living at the facility, concerns were raised regarding them being “incredibly suggestible” to others encouraging their consumption of cannabis:

These people – they have an addiction. For sure they’re making choices, but those choices are influenced by physical withdrawal or influenced by stress; they’re influenced by lots of things. So, I would hate to put residents in a position where that was one other [non-medical cannabis] thing they had to contend with during the rehab stay. (Administrator, PA02)

The use of cannabis for therapeutic and recreational purposes is becoming more prevalent within older adult populations, both in the community as well as within healthcare institutions. There has also been growing interest in the possible role of medical cannabis for select chronic, rehabilitative, and palliative health conditions, frequently found among individuals residing within LTC settings. LTC facilities, thus, face the complex practice and policy implications associated with a substance that has been surrounded in controversy for close to a century. This case study is among the first to explore in one LTC facility in Western Canada how cannabis use is being addressed following the legalization of non-medical cannabis products, and what challenges exist. It provides an important snapshot of the complexities surrounding cannabis use in LTC and a foundation for future research.

Cannabis use in LTC settings: a clash of cultures

One challenge experienced by people residing in LTC facilities is the tension that exists between social and medical models of care that most facilities are founded on. Historically, LTC facilities have operated as what Goffman [ 43 ] termed “total institutions”, places where every aspect of a person’s life was controlled by others, paternalism dominated, and the medical needs of people were what drove care practices. Aspects of the total institution still exist, as noted in this case study, whereby cannabis use is in the control of the HCPs; it is dispensed during medication administration times rather than being freely available for use by the resident when they so desire as would be in a person’s home. In trying to create more home-like environments and meet the broad range of social and emotional needs of residents, resident-centred care practices and relational models of care have emerged [ 44 ]. Within this milieu, resident autonomy and choice are at the forefront and HCPs are there to assist, rather than take control of residents’ daily lives. In the most ideal settings, behaviours that are considered ‘risky’, like alcohol consumption, are treated as social experiences, not care tasks to be managed [ 45 ]. The tension arises, however, that despite the desire to be resident-centred, most LTC facilities are highly regulated by governments, putting limits to resident choice and, therefore, their autonomy [ 45 ]. While HCPs in our study acknowledged that residents should have the right to use medical or non-medical cannabis, the regional and institutional policies surrounding safety and the rights of other residents and staff to not be exposed to potentially risky behaviour underscored many of their views. LTC facilities would be wise to consider the principles of dignity of risk [ 46 ] with relation to cannabis consumption/use along the frail elderly population that reside in the home.

Cannabis policies and LTC: one size doesn’t fit all

The cannabis policies developed at the advent of legalization, without consideration of the unique populations and healthcare challenges that exist within LTC facilities, created numerous barriers to residents accessing and using cannabis, as well as for HCPs attempting to provide appropriate care. One of the most significant challenges experienced by LTC residents in our study was the inability to obtain a medical cannabis authorization from a physician working in the facility. Another significant challenge was the regional policy that medical cannabis could not be couriered directly to the LTC pharmacy; instead, the resident or their support persons were responsible for ordering and bringing cannabis products into the facility. Both challenges created enormous inequity in which residents that lacked the physical and cognitive ability to obtain authorization and order medical cannabis from an LP or were without a support person willing and able to obtain medical cannabis on their behalf, were unable to access medical cannabis. Given the nature of LTC populations, these policies led to only a few residents being able to access and use medical cannabis as part of their care.

Another policy that had substantial safety implications for residents wanting to use inhaled forms of cannabis was the regional and institutional no smoking policies that prevented both tobacco and cannabis products from being consumed within the centre as well as on the grounds. As a result, residents had to make their own way, or be accompanied by a support person, to walk approximately 300 m to the public sidewalk where they were allowed to smoke or vape cannabis. With the LTC facility located in a region where winter temperatures can reach − 35 Celsius and sidewalks are covered in snow and ice, this poses significant risk for residents who may be at heightened risk of falls and utilizing assisted walking devices. Similar safety implications of smoke-free policies have been identified in previous research [ 47 ].

Lastly, the policies surrounding the storage and self-administration of medical cannabis for those residents with the physical and emotional capacity (or with a support person willing to administer) may pose potential safety and liability risks and contribute to the concerns held by some HCPs about the use of cannabis in LTC. While residents’ autonomy must be respected, as well as their own expertise with regards to medical cannabis use, the value of standardized medication protocols to ensure the safety of residents as well as to inform care decisions must be acknowledged. The tension experienced in balancing LTC residents’ autonomy with health and safety concerns in the context of substance use has been cited in a recent scoping review [ 48 ] as well as prior research that has examined the use of tobacco in residential care settings [ 49 ].

The policy-related challenges identified by study participants suggest that consultations with LTC residents, families and HCPs are urgently needed to develop and refine cannabis policies that address the needs and reality of individuals living and receiving care in LTC. Future policy reviews must balance LTC residents’ autonomy with the safety issues associated with cannabis use (i.e., dignity of risk), particularly among older adults and those with cognitive and physical impairments. Approaching cannabis policies and procedures in LTC from a harm reduction perspective [ 50 ] with regards to supporting safer consumption of medical cannabis (e.g., route of administration, designated consumption areas) may also be important. Further, the unique context of LTC must also be acknowledged in that for many residents, a LTC facility is their home, and will continue to be so until the end of their lives. But the shared nature of a LTC setting requires that some boundaries be established to protect all residents, as well as those working within LTC. From a staff perspective, a review of policies related to the administration and documentation of cannabis use is needed to protect them from claims of diversion as well as other medicolegal challenges.

Cannabis knowledge gap and stigma in LTC

Across both the quantitative and qualitative data, the gap in knowledge regarding cannabis and the need for continuing education for HCPs working in LTC were readily apparent. When HCPs are unfamiliar about the various forms of medical cannabis, appropriate dosing and titration schedules, and routes of administration, they are hindered in their ability to engage in shared decision making with LTC residents as well as provide high-quality care [ 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ]. Education is particularly needed that is tailored to the unique risks and benefits of medical cannabis use among LTC populations, including those living with physical and cognitive impairment. Older adults may be more sensitive to the side effects of cannabis due to changes in how medications and drugs are metabolised, and the predominance of polypharmacy among those residing in LTC may further complicate how individuals respond to cannabis [ 55 ]. Therefore, HCPs working in LTC must be aware of how cannabis use may impact individuals’ mobility, memory, and behaviour, as well as the potential for dependency, particularly among those who have experienced substance use issues in the past.

Beyond basic education regarding cannabis and its effects, HCPs must also become aware and informed about existing federal, regional, and institutional policies as well as professional practice standards regarding both medical and non-medical cannabis. The study findings highlighted the uncertainty many HCPs experienced regarding how medical and non-medical cannabis was to be accessed, authorized, administered, stored, and disposed within the LTC facility and what was within their professional scope of practice. Legal concerns about liability, workplace safety, and diversion were also raised.

It is important that future cannabis education programs targeting LTC settings also address the underlying stigma and stereotypes that still surround cannabis use [ 56 , 57 ], despite the existence of a medical cannabis program in Canada for over 20 years and the recent legalization of non-medical cannabis. Experiential training that promotes non-judgmental communication that avoids stigmatizing language (e.g., user, addict, marijuana) and considers both the risks and benefits of cannabis use, particularly within the context of end-of-life care, will help address the stigma that HCPs and LTC residents and families may hold towards cannabis.

With the legalization of cannabis in many regions around the world, it is imperative that undergraduate health professional training programs include information about both medical and non-medical cannabis. Currently, there is a knowledge gap among HCPs due to the lack of standardized curriculum for medical cannabis across nursing or medical schools [ 35 , 58 ]. Understanding such foundational knowledge such as the endocannabinoid system, the different forms and types of cannabis, and the potential health effects will enable physicians, nurses, pharmacists and other HCPs to engage in informed conversations with individuals and families both within and beyond LTC [ 33 ]. In addition, the development of continuing education programs focused on cannabis will ensure practicing HCPs have current knowledge about cannabis, including existing policies and programs relevant to medical and non-medical cannabis. For example, the Canadian Coalition for Seniors’ Mental Health created asynchronous e-learning modules to provide evidence-based knowledge for various clinicians [ 59 ].

Non-medical cannabis use in LTC: it’s legal but…

Despite non-medical cannabis being a legal substance for over three years in Canada at the time of the case study, the use of non-medical cannabis by LTC residents was considered controversial amongst the HCPs interviewed. Not only were HCPs limited in their ability to support the use of non-medical cannabis due to regional policies that prohibited non-medical cannabis consumption at any healthcare facility and surrounding grounds but concerns about potential safety risks and disruptions to the care environment made some HCPs hesitant about supporting residents’ use of non-medical cannabis.

Notwithstanding these challenges, at least a quarter of HCPs surveyed reported providing care to a LTC resident who used non-medical cannabis, which suggests that regulatory and policy changes are required to ensure there is equity across LTC residents who may express interest in non-medical cannabis, as well as to address the unique safety and care issues associated with recreational cannabis use in LTC populations. Similar to medical cannabis, LTC residents’ autonomy must be considered in future policy changes related to non-medical cannabis to facilitate care that is free from stigma and bias, respects residents’ rights to make informed decisions and to live with risk, and to create a home-like environment where residents can engage in activities that were an important part of their lives before entering LTC.

Lessons can be drawn from literature that has examined the use of other legal substances, such as alcohol and tobacco in LTC [ 48 , 60 ], and the need to develop person-centered care plans that ensure the safety of the individual, fellow residents, and the healthcare team.

Limitations

Like all case studies, the findings cannot be extrapolated to other LTC settings and populations. Given that this study was undertaken in Canada, which has a socialized healthcare system and legalized both medical and non-medical cannabis, the experiences and attitudes of HCPs who participated may be unique and limit the generalizability of the findings. However, there are lessons to be learned regarding the challenges that residents in LTC facilities face in using medical and non-medical cannabis, as well as the potential need for both education and policy reform to better support HCPs in providing appropriate, safe, and person-centred care of LTC residents. In addition, the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data allowed triangulation during the data analysis and helped improved the rigor of the findings [ 61 ]. Recruitment and data collection for this study also occurred during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the response rate was lower than desired and there was limited diversity among study participants with regards health profession designation. However, the proportion of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and other allied health professions reflected the overall staff composition of the LTC facility.

Implications for future research

Beyond the policy and practice implications discussed earlier, the study findings also point to the urgent need for research focused on cannabis use among populations commonly found within LTC settings. The lack of evidence regarding the potential health effects of cannabis in the management of diseases such as dementia, arthritis, Parkinson’s, traumatic brain injury, and multiple sclerosis led many of the HCPs interviewed to be hesitant about authorizing and supervising cannabis use for LTC residents living with these conditions. While there is a growing number of studies being undertaken focused on medical cannabis, many are limited by their sample size and study design. It is only through high-quality clinical trials that evaluate the efficacy and safety of medical cannabis that a change in practice will occur.

Future medical cannabis research must also be developed in a manner that is inclusive of older adults and those living in LTC. The exclusion of such populations from clinical research has been previously identified as problematic [ 62 ], resulting in research findings that lack generalizability and pose challenges in determining the applicability of research to older adults who may be living with numerous co-morbidities and using multiple medications. While the inclusion of older adults in medical cannabis clinical trials may be more methodologically and ethically challenging, it will lead to evidence that will inform both future policies and practices.

Lastly, our case study offers insight into the reality and challenges of cannabis use by residents of one LTC facility. Additional research across different jurisdictions is needed to explore how LTC settings are addressing cannabis use and to learn from their experiences. We encourage the continued use of mixed methods study designs to ensure the experiences and perspectives of residents, family members and HCPs are captured alongside administrative data related to medical and non-medical cannabis use.

With the legalization of medical and non-medical cannabis in jurisdictions around the world, LTC facilities will be obligated to develop policies, procedures and healthcare services that are able to accommodate residents’ use of cannabis in a respectful and evidence-informed manner. Balancing the safety concerns against the potential therapeutic value of cannabis, as well as considering residents’ autonomy and the home-like environment of LTC, will be important considerations in how cannabis use is addressed and regulated. Our case study highlights the lack of knowledge, inequities, and stigma that continue to surround cannabis in LTC. There is an urgent need for research that not only explores the potential risks and benefits of cannabis, but also informs the development of more nuanced and equitable policies and education resources that will support reasonable and informed access to medical and non-medical cannabis for older adults and others living in LTC.

Data availability

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to the small sample size drawn from one health care facility but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Cannabidiol

Healthcare provider

Long–term care

Tetrahydrocannabinol

Licensed Producer

Government of Canada. Cannabis Act (S.C. 2018, c.16). 2018. http://canlii.ca/t/5392s retrieved on 2019-10-07.

Sandhu HS, Anderson LN, Busse JW. Characteristics of canadians likely to try or increase cannabis use following legalization for nonmedical purposes: a cross-sectional study. CMAJ Open. 2019;7(2):E399–404.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Statistics Canada. National Cannabis Survey, third quarter 2019. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/191030/dq191030a-eng.htm

Statistics Canada. Research to Insights: Cannabis in Canada. 2023. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-631-x/11-631-x2023006-eng.htm

Lau N, Sales P, Averill S, Murphy F, Sato SO, Murphy S. A safer alternative: cannabis substitution as harm reduction. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2015;34(6):654–9.

Bobitt J, Qualls SH, Schuchman M, Wickersham R, Lum HD, Arora K, et al. Qualitative analysis of cannabis use among older adults in Colorado. Drugs Aging. 2019;36(7):655–66.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Reynolds IR, Fixen DR, Parnes BL, Lum HD, Shanbhag P, Church S, et al. Characteristics and patterns of marijuana use in community-dwelling older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018;66(11):2167–71.

Baumbusch J, Sloan Yip I. Exploring new use of cannabis among older adults. Clin Gerontol. 2021;44(1):25–31.

Tumati S, Lanctôt KL, Wang RD, Li A, Davis A, Herrmann N. Medical cannabis use among older adults in Canada: self-reported data on types and amount used, and perceived effects. Drugs Aging. 2022;39(2):153–63.

Government of Canada. Data on cannabis for medical purposes. 2022. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/research-data/medical-purpose.html

Cooper ZD, Abrams DI, Gust S, Salicrup A, Throckmorton DC. Challenges for clinical cannabis and cannabinoid research in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2021;2021(58):114–22.

Piomelli D, Solomon R, Abrams D, Balla A, Grant I, Marcotte T, et al. Regulatory barriers to research on cannabis and cannabinoids: a proposed path forward. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res. 2019;4(1):21–32.

O’Brien M, McDougall JJ. Cannabis and joints: scientific evidence for the alleviation of osteoarthritis pain by cannabinoids. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2018;40:104–9.

Babson KA, Sottile J, Morabito D. Cannabis, cannabinoids, and sleep: a review of the literature. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2017;19(4):23.

Hillen JB, Soulsby N, Alderman C, Caughey GE. Safety and effectiveness of cannabinoids for the treatment of neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia: a systematic review. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2019;10:2042098619846993.

Chagas MHN, Zuardi AW, Tumas V, Pena-Pereira MA, Sobreira ET, Bergamaschi MM, et al. Effects of cannabidiol in the treatment of patients with Parkinson’s disease: an exploratory double-blind trial. J Psychopharmacol. 2014;28(11):1088–98.

Shohet A, Khlebtovsky A, Roizen N, Roditi Y, Djaldetti R. Effect of medical cannabis on thermal quantitative measurements of pain in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Eur J Pain. 2017;21(3):486–93.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Herrmann N, Ruthirakuhan M, Gallagher D, Verhoeff NPLG, Kiss A, Black SE, et al. Randomized placebo-controlled trial of nabilone for agitation in Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2019;27(11):1161–73.

Shelef A, Barak Y, Berger U, Paleacu D, Tadger S, Plopsky I, et al. Safety and efficacy of medical cannabis oil for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia: an open label, add-on, pilot study. J Alzheimer’s Dis. 2016;51(1):15–9.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Volicer L, Stelly M, Morris J, Mclaughlin J, Volicer BJ. Effects of dronabinol on anorexia and disturbed behavior in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 1997;12(9):913–9.

Cyr C, Arboleda MF, Aggarwal SK, Balneaves LG, Daeninck P, Néron A, et al. Cannabis in palliative care: current challenges and practical recommendations. Ann Palliat Med. 2018;7(4):463–77.

Pooyania S, Ethans K, Szturm T, Casey A, Perry D. A randomized, double-blinded, crossover pilot study assessing the effect of nabilone on spasticity in persons with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(5):703–7.

Wilsey B, Marcotte TD, Deutsch R, Zhao H, Prasad H, Phan A. An exploratory human laboratory experiment evaluating vaporized cannabis in the treatment of neuropathic pain from spinal cord injury and disease. J Pain. 2016;17(9):982–1000.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Grenier K, Ponnambalam F, Lee D, Lauwers R, Bhalerao S. Cannabis in the treatment of traumatic brain injury: a primer for clinicians. Can J Neurol Sci. 2019;47(1):11–7.

Minerbi A, Hauser W, Fitzcharles MA. Medical cannabis for older patients. Drugs Aging. 2019;36(1):39–51.

MacCallum CA, Russo EB. Practical considerations in medical cannabis administration and dosing. Eur J Int Med. 2018;49:12–9.

Bertram JR, Porath A, Seitz D, Kalant H, Krishnamoorthy A, Nickerson J, et al. Canadian guidelines on cannabis use disorder among older adults. Can Geriatr J. 2020;23(1):135–42.

Banerjee S. Multimorbidity–older adults need health care that can count past one. Lancet. 2015;385(9968):587–9.

Bom J, Bakx P, Rellstab S. Well-being right before and after a permanent nursing home admission. Health Econ. 2022;31(12):2558–74.

Calkins M, Brush J. Honoring individual choice in long-term residential communities when it involves risk: a person-centered approach. J Gerontol Nurs. 2016;42(8):12–7.

Yin R. Case study research and applications: design and methods. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2018.

Google Scholar  

Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(4):334–40.

Balneaves LG, Alraja A, Ziemianski D, McCuaig F, Ware M. A national needs assessment of Canadian nurse practitioners regarding cannabis for therapeutic purposes. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res. 2018;3(1):66–73.

Ziemianski D, Capler R, Tekanoff R, Lacasse A, Luconi F, Ware MA. Cannabis in medicine: a national educational needs assessment among Canadian physicians. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:50–2.

Article   Google Scholar  

Balneaves LG, Alraja AA. Guarding their practice: a descriptive study of Canadian nursing policies and education related to medical cannabis. BMC Nurs. 2019;18(1):66.

Fox RD. Revisiting discrepancy analysis in continuing medical education: a conceptual model 1983. J Contin Health Prof. 2011;31(1):71–6.

Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.

College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba. Medical cannabis: Guidelines for Manitoba nurses. 2019. https://www.crnm.mb.ca/uploads/document/document_file_247.pdf?t=1549645011

College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba. Practice direction: RN(NP) authorization of medical cannabis. 2018. https://www.crnm.mb.ca/uploads/document/document_file_252.pdf?t=1538755351

The College of Physicians & Surgeons of Manitoba. Standard of practice: Cannabis for medical purpose. 2020. https://cpsm.mb.ca/assets/Standards of Practice/Standard of Practice Authorizing Cannabis for Medical Purposes.pdf.

Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. Smoke-Free Policy. 2014. https://wrha.mb.ca/files/wrha-policy-10-00-010.pdf

Government of Canada. Cannabis regulations (SOR/2018 – 144) [. 2018. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Regulations/SOR-2018-144/index.html

Goffman E. Asylums: essays on the social situations of mental patients and other inmates. Oxford, England: Doubleday (Anchor); 1961.

White-Chu EF, Graves WJ, Godfrey SM, Bonner A, Sloane P. Beyond the medical model: the culture change revolution in long-term care. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2009;10(6):370–8.

Chivers S. Make mine a double. In: Armstrong P, Daly T, editors. Exercising choice in long-term residential care. Montreal, QC: RR Donnelley; 2017. pp. 55–8.

Woolford MH, de Lacy-Vawdon C, Bugeja L, Weller C, Ibrahim JE. Applying dignity of risk principles to improve quality of life for vulnerable persons. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2020;35(1):122–30.

Schultz ASH, Finegan B, Nykiforuk CIJ, Kvern MA. A qualitative investigation of smoke-free policies on hospital property. CMAJ. 2011;183(18):2085–6.

De Graaf L, Janssen M, Roelofs T, Luijkx K. Substance use and misuse of older adults living in residential care facilities: a scoping review from a person-centred care approach. Ageing Soc. 2021;43(6):1–27.

Adler G, Greeman M, Parker H, Kuskowski M. Self-determination and residents who smoke. J Social Work Long-Term Care. 2002;1(4):19–30.

Lau N, Sales P, Averill S, Murphy F, Sato SO, Murphy S. Responsible and controlled use: older cannabis users and harm reduction. Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26(8):709–18.

Clobes TA, Palmier LA, Gagnon M, Klaiman C, Arellano M. The impact of education on attitudes toward medical cannabis. PEC Innov. 2022;1:100009.

Croker JA, Bobitt J, Sanders S, Arora K, Mueller K, Kaskie B. Cannabis and end-of-life care: a snapshot of hospice planning and experiences among Illinois medical cannabis patients with a terminal diagnosis. Am J Hosp Palliat Med. 2022;39(3):345–52.

Hachem Y, Abdallah SJ, Rueda S, Wiese JL, Mehra K, Rup J, et al. Healthcare practitioner perceptions on barriers impacting cannabis prescribing practices. BMC Complement Med Ther. 2022;22(1):1–12.

Hope J, Schoonhoven L, Griffiths P, Gould L, Bridges J. I’ll put up with things for a long time before I need to call anybody: face work, the Total Institution and the perpetuation of care inequalities. Sociol Health Illn. 2022;44(2):469–87.

Williams AR. Ethical dilemmas in counseling older adults on cannabis use: less science, more quandaries. Generations J. 2020;44(4):1–5.

Skliamis K, Benschop A, Korf DJ. Cannabis users and stigma: a comparison of users from European countries with different cannabis policies. Eur J Crimin. 2022;19(6):1483–500.

Troup LJ, Erridge S, Ciesluk B, Sodergren MH. Perceived stigma of patients undergoing treatment with cannabis-based medicinal products. Int J Env Res Public Health. 2022;19(12).

Evanoff AB, Quan T, Dufault C, Awad M, Bierut LJ. Physicians-in-training are not prepared to prescribe medical marijuana. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017;180:151–5.

Canadian Coalition for Seniors’ Mental Health. Cannabis and older adults. https://ccsmh.ca/cannabis-and-older-adults-project/

Grossi A, Holmes A, Ibrahim JE. Use of alcohol in long term care settings: a comparative analysis of personal choice, public health advice and the law. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021;22(1):9–e141.

Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:100.

Crome P, Lally F, Cherubini A, Oristrell J, Beswick AD, Clarfield AM, et al. Exclusion of older people from clinical trials: professional views from nine European countries participating in the PREDICT study. Drugs Aging. 2011;28(8):667–77.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the healthcare professionals that graciously took the time to share their thoughts about cannabis use in long-term care settings. In addition, Ms. Sina Barkman, Chief Human Resources Officer, Riverview Health Centre, helped the research team navigate the complexity of conducting research in long-term care settings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Funding for this study was received from the Riverview Health Centre Foundation.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Nursing, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

Lynda G. Balneaves, Abeer A. Alraja, Genevieve Thompson, Jamie L. Penner & Daniella Scerbo

Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

Philip St. John

Riverview Health Centre, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

Joanne van Dyck

College of Nursing, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, 89 Curry Place, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada

Lynda G. Balneaves

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

“L.G.B, G.T, J.P and P.StJ. conceptualised the study. A.A.A. and D.S. engaged in recruitment and data collection activities. L.G.B. and A.A.A. analysed and interpreted the quantitative and qualitative data and developed a first draft of the manuscript, with assistance from G.T. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.”

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lynda G. Balneaves .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the University of Manitoba Research Ethics Board (R1-2021:011 (HS24693)) and was approved by the Riverview Health Centre Research Committee. Implied consent was received from participants who completed the survey and written informed consent was obtained from all participants who completed an interview. We confirm that all methods were performed in accordance with the relevant ethical guidelines and regulations, (i.e., Tri-Council Policy Statement).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Balneaves, L.G., Alraja, A.A., Thompson, G. et al. Cannabis use in a Canadian long-term care facility: a case study. BMC Geriatr 24 , 467 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05074-2

Download citation

Received : 11 July 2023

Accepted : 13 May 2024

Published : 29 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05074-2

Share this article

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

• Medical cannabis
• Non-medical cannabis
• Long-term care
• Residential care
• Older adults

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Harris County Jail inmates to use tablets in hopes of preventing violence

HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) -- Electronic tablets are coming to the Harris County Jail.

They won't cost taxpayers a penny, and administrators say they will make the jail safer and help inmates by allowing them to reach family members and research their cases.

The tablets are already in some parts of the Harris County jail and will be given to every inmate by September.

They were provided by a Dallas-based company called Securus Technologies and have been in Texas state prisons since 2021.

The tablets are strictly monitored and not fully connected to the internet.

Inmates won't be able to get on social media, and they will only be able to call people on pre-approved lists.

The tablets have free apps that give inmates access to a law library, religious texts, and self-help resources.

"Idle time can lead to issues. So that they can engage in education and other services that come on the tablets, it helps them keep busy and occupied, which in turn makes it a lower jail climate," HCSO Asst. Chief Phillip Bosquez said.

But, one of the concerns is that the technology company charges inmates for the calls.

Some say tablets are just another way to profit off a group of people with a lot of free time.

As of Friday, the average stay at the Harris County Jail is 184 days.

"I talk to my wife every night. I have five kids as well, so I get to talk to my kids, my wife, and my mom," inmate Carlos Garcia said. "We're all humans. We all make mistakes, and it's good to have something like this in jail because you know it helps you. Sometimes it gets violent in here, and this will reduce a lot of violence going on in the dorms."

Inmates can also purchase approved movies and TV shows on the tablets.

For more on this story, follow Pooja Lodhia on Facebook , X and Instagram .

Related Topics

• HARRIS COUNTY
• HARRIS COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE
• CRIME PREVENTION

Too much screen time linked to detrimental effects in kids: Study

Kick off Amazon Prime Day with these tech products

FCC approves $50 monthly internet subsidies for low-income households

HISD will spend $31 million on laptops and hotspots

Top stories.

Tollway victim may have agitated shooter for driving slow, family says

• 3 hours ago

Man in hoodie seen running away after deadly shooting in SE Houston

Ozone Pollution Watch Saturday, storm chances return next week

14-year-old Houston Farmers Market suspected shooter arrested

Apollo 8 astronaut William Anders dies in Washington plane crash

Astros place Kyle Tucker on injured list with shin contusion

Multiple people may be trapped in E. Harris Co. wreck, sheriff says

Crash involving unoccupied moving SUV sets off rush-hour mess on I-45