Stake (2005) states that case study research is not a methodology but a choice of what is to be studied. This seems to be a very narrow definition. Case study is viewed by others, however, as a strategy of inquiry, a
methodology, or a comprehensive research strategy (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005; Merriam, 1998; Yin; 2009). Creswell (2013) suggests that case study can be viewed ‘as a methodology; a type of design in qualitative research that may be an object of study, as well as a product of the inquiry’ (p97). He goes on to provide the following definition which is used here as a starting point.
‘Case study research is a qualitative approach in which the investigator explores a real-life, contemporary bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information, and reports a case description and case themes.’ (Creswell, 2013, p97)
A case study is concerned then with the complexity and particular nature (Stake, 1995) of a case that is ‘studied holistically by one or more methods’ (Thomas, 2011, p511). It provides a ‘single instance’ (Creswell, 1994, p12) that is bounded by context, time and group, such as, a single child, a group of teachers, a school or a whole community. There are those who disagree with this tight delineation, however. Yin (2009) argues that ‘the boundary line between the phenomenon and its context is blurred, as a case study is a study of a case in a context and it is important to set the case within its context’ (p18). Case studies can ‘explain, describe, illustrate and enlighten’ (Yin, 2009, p19-20). Hitchcock and Hughes (1995, p317) suggest that they are able to do this through the richness provided by vivid description of relevant events in which the researcher is integrally involved. Geertz’s (1973) ‘thick description’ (p412) would seem therefore to potentially strengthen a case study, which is considered to be effective if it creates in
et al., 2000, p181). Based on the desire to create vivid descriptions from in-depth data collection, multiple sources of information can be used, such as ‘documents, archival records, interviews, direct observations, participant observation and physical artefacts’ (Yin, 2009, p31).
Stake (1995) suggests that a case study can be defined by intent; intrinsic if it is to illustrate a unique case or instrumental if it is to help understand a specific issue or problem. Instrumental case study can also involve more than one bounded case to illustrate the issue. These are termed collective case studies or multiple case studies. All case studies involve a description of the case and, in addition, the researcher might identify themes to study within each case. Analysis of themes across cases to identify similarities and differences is also appropriate with conclusions formed by the researcher presented at the end. These have been termed ‘assertions’ Stake (1995), ‘explanations’ Yin (2009), and ‘general lessons learned’ Creswell (2013).
Classification of case studies by type is also provided by authors other than Stake. Yin (1984) identifies three types in terms of their outcomes;
exploratory, descriptive and explanatory. Merriam (1988) proposes a similar distinction between descriptive, interpretive and evaluative whilst Sturman (1999, p107) identifies four types: an ethnographic case study; action research case study; evaluative case study; and educational case study. This latter classification seems to be based more on the
circumstances in which the study is carried out than the former which focus on the outcome. It might be considered then that case study research could be appropriately categorised using multiple descriptors. For example, ‘interpretive, educational, collective case studies’ would describe those where ‘multiple-case design’ (Yin, 2009, p46) is to be utilised to examine case studies within educational contexts that potentially allow for the inductive development of conceptual categories in order to examine initial assumptions.
Like all research approaches, the use of a case study has strengths and weaknesses. Nisbet and Watt (1984) suggest that strengths include, the ability of a case study to catch unique features that might hold the key to understanding a situation, that they are often easily understood by a wide
audience, and that they can be undertaken by a single researcher. They suggest that the latter however could lead to observer bias and identify a further weakness as the generalisability often being dependent on other researchers being able to identify the potential for this. Adelman et al. (1980) view case study data as potentially difficult to organise but ‘strong on reality’ (p59) because attention is paid to the subtleties and complexities of the particular case.
A further strength of case study might be considered to be the notion of significance. This suggests that it is less important to consider the
frequency with which something happens and more important to focus on what happens in particular circumstances. Cohen et al. (2011) state that:
‘Case studies, in not having to seek frequencies of
occurrences, can replace quantity with quality and intensity, separating the significant few from the insignificant many instances of behaviour.’ (p294)
It seems that for a study which involves clearly identifiable and bounded cases and where the research seeks to provide an in-depth understanding of a particular phenomenon, a case study approach would be appropriate. The potential to expand the single case study to include multiple cases and to make comparisons between them are also strengths of this approach and it is therefore considered most appropriate for this research.