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.
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.
Case Study Research Design And Methods Robert K. Yin.pdf
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.
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.
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.
The Second Edition of The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods provides students and researchers with the most comprehensive resource covering core methods, research designs, and data collection, management, and analysis issues. This thoroughly revised edition continues to place critical emphasis on finding the tools that best fit the research question given the constraints of deadlines, budget, and available staff. Each chapter offers guidance on how to make intelligent and conscious trade-offs so that one can refine and hone the research question as new knowledge is gained, unanticipated obstacles are encountered, or contextual shifts take place.
Whether you are starting as a novice or a seasoned investigator, this chapter will help you improve your case study research.1 The chapter differs from other case study guides, and especially, the earlier case study chapter (Yin, 1998) in the first edition of this Handbook, in at least two ways.
"[This book] provides a complete portal to the world of case study research. With the integration of 11 applications in this edition, the book gives readers access to...case studies drawn from a wide variety of academic and applied fields. Ultimately, [this book] will guide students in the...design and use of the case study research method. New to this edition: includes 11 in-depth applications that show how researchers have implemented case study methods successfully; increases reference to relativist and constructivist approaches to case study research, as well as how case studies can be part of mixed methods projects; places greater emphasis on using plausible rival explanations to bolster case study quality; discusses synthesizing findings across case studies in a multiple-case study in more detail; adds an expanded list of 15 fields that have text or texts devoted to case study research; and sharpens discussion of distinguishing research from non-research case studies. The author brings to light at least three remaining gaps to be filled in the future: how rival explanations can become more routinely integrated into all case study research; the difference between case-based and variable-based approaches to designing and analyzing case studies; and the relationship between case study research and qualitative research."-- 2ff7e9595c
Comments