case study on university research

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

Definition and Introduction

Case analysis is a problem-based teaching and learning method that involves critically analyzing complex scenarios within an organizational setting for the purpose of placing the student in a “real world” situation and applying reflection and critical thinking skills to contemplate appropriate solutions, decisions, or recommended courses of action. It is considered a more effective teaching technique than in-class role playing or simulation activities. The analytical process is often guided by questions provided by the instructor that ask students to contemplate relationships between the facts and critical incidents described in the case.

Cases generally include both descriptive and statistical elements and rely on students applying abductive reasoning to develop and argue for preferred or best outcomes [i.e., case scenarios rarely have a single correct or perfect answer based on the evidence provided]. Rather than emphasizing theories or concepts, case analysis assignments emphasize building a bridge of relevancy between abstract thinking and practical application and, by so doing, teaches the value of both within a specific area of professional practice.

Given this, the purpose of a case analysis paper is to present a structured and logically organized format for analyzing the case situation. It can be assigned to students individually or as a small group assignment and it may include an in-class presentation component. Case analysis is predominately taught in economics and business-related courses, but it is also a method of teaching and learning found in other applied social sciences disciplines, such as, social work, public relations, education, journalism, and public administration.

Ellet, William. The Case Study Handbook: A Student's Guide . Revised Edition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2018; Christoph Rasche and Achim Seisreiner. Guidelines for Business Case Analysis . University of Potsdam; Writing a Case Analysis . Writing Center, Baruch College; Volpe, Guglielmo. "Case Teaching in Economics: History, Practice and Evidence." Cogent Economics and Finance 3 (December 2015). doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2015.1120977.

How to Approach Writing a Case Analysis Paper

The organization and structure of a case analysis paper can vary depending on the organizational setting, the situation, and how your professor wants you to approach the assignment. Nevertheless, preparing to write a case analysis paper involves several important steps. As Hawes notes, a case analysis assignment “...is useful in developing the ability to get to the heart of a problem, analyze it thoroughly, and to indicate the appropriate solution as well as how it should be implemented” [p.48]. This statement encapsulates how you should approach preparing to write a case analysis paper.

Before you begin to write your paper, consider the following analytical procedures:

• Review the case to get an overview of the situation . A case can be only a few pages in length, however, it is most often very lengthy and contains a significant amount of detailed background information and statistics, with multilayered descriptions of the scenario, the roles and behaviors of various stakeholder groups, and situational events. Therefore, a quick reading of the case will help you gain an overall sense of the situation and illuminate the types of issues and problems that you will need to address in your paper. If your professor has provided questions intended to help frame your analysis, use them to guide your initial reading of the case.
• Read the case thoroughly . After gaining a general overview of the case, carefully read the content again with the purpose of understanding key circumstances, events, and behaviors among stakeholder groups. Look for information or data that appears contradictory, extraneous, or misleading. At this point, you should be taking notes as you read because this will help you develop a general outline of your paper. The aim is to obtain a complete understanding of the situation so that you can begin contemplating tentative answers to any questions your professor has provided or, if they have not provided, developing answers to your own questions about the case scenario and its connection to the course readings,lectures, and class discussions.
• Determine key stakeholder groups, issues, and events and the relationships they all have to each other . As you analyze the content, pay particular attention to identifying individuals, groups, or organizations described in the case and identify evidence of any problems or issues of concern that impact the situation in a negative way. Other things to look for include identifying any assumptions being made by or about each stakeholder, potential biased explanations or actions, explicit demands or ultimatums , and the underlying concerns that motivate these behaviors among stakeholders. The goal at this stage is to develop a comprehensive understanding of the situational and behavioral dynamics of the case and the explicit and implicit consequences of each of these actions.
• Identify the core problems . The next step in most case analysis assignments is to discern what the core [i.e., most damaging, detrimental, injurious] problems are within the organizational setting and to determine their implications. The purpose at this stage of preparing to write your analysis paper is to distinguish between the symptoms of core problems and the core problems themselves and to decide which of these must be addressed immediately and which problems do not appear critical but may escalate over time. Identify evidence from the case to support your decisions by determining what information or data is essential to addressing the core problems and what information is not relevant or is misleading.
• Explore alternative solutions . As noted, case analysis scenarios rarely have only one correct answer. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind that the process of analyzing the case and diagnosing core problems, while based on evidence, is a subjective process open to various avenues of interpretation. This means that you must consider alternative solutions or courses of action by critically examining strengths and weaknesses, risk factors, and the differences between short and long-term solutions. For each possible solution or course of action, consider the consequences they may have related to their implementation and how these recommendations might lead to new problems. Also, consider thinking about your recommended solutions or courses of action in relation to issues of fairness, equity, and inclusion.
• Decide on a final set of recommendations . The last stage in preparing to write a case analysis paper is to assert an opinion or viewpoint about the recommendations needed to help resolve the core problems as you see them and to make a persuasive argument for supporting this point of view. Prepare a clear rationale for your recommendations based on examining each element of your analysis. Anticipate possible obstacles that could derail their implementation. Consider any counter-arguments that could be made concerning the validity of your recommended actions. Finally, describe a set of criteria and measurable indicators that could be applied to evaluating the effectiveness of your implementation plan.

Use these steps as the framework for writing your paper. Remember that the more detailed you are in taking notes as you critically examine each element of the case, the more information you will have to draw from when you begin to write. This will save you time.

NOTE : If the process of preparing to write a case analysis paper is assigned as a student group project, consider having each member of the group analyze a specific element of the case, including drafting answers to the corresponding questions used by your professor to frame the analysis. This will help make the analytical process more efficient and ensure that the distribution of work is equitable. This can also facilitate who is responsible for drafting each part of the final case analysis paper and, if applicable, the in-class presentation.

Framework for Case Analysis . College of Management. University of Massachusetts; Hawes, Jon M. "Teaching is Not Telling: The Case Method as a Form of Interactive Learning." Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education 5 (Winter 2004): 47-54; Rasche, Christoph and Achim Seisreiner. Guidelines for Business Case Analysis . University of Potsdam; Writing a Case Study Analysis . University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center; Van Ness, Raymond K. A Guide to Case Analysis . School of Business. State University of New York, Albany; Writing a Case Analysis . Business School, University of New South Wales.

Structure and Writing Style

A case analysis paper should be detailed, concise, persuasive, clearly written, and professional in tone and in the use of language . As with other forms of college-level academic writing, declarative statements that convey information, provide a fact, or offer an explanation or any recommended courses of action should be based on evidence. If allowed by your professor, any external sources used to support your analysis, such as course readings, should be properly cited under a list of references. The organization and structure of case analysis papers can vary depending on your professor’s preferred format, but its structure generally follows the steps used for analyzing the case.

Introduction

The introduction should provide a succinct but thorough descriptive overview of the main facts, issues, and core problems of the case . The introduction should also include a brief summary of the most relevant details about the situation and organizational setting. This includes defining the theoretical framework or conceptual model on which any questions were used to frame your analysis.

Following the rules of most college-level research papers, the introduction should then inform the reader how the paper will be organized. This includes describing the major sections of the paper and the order in which they will be presented. Unless you are told to do so by your professor, you do not need to preview your final recommendations in the introduction. U nlike most college-level research papers , the introduction does not include a statement about the significance of your findings because a case analysis assignment does not involve contributing new knowledge about a research problem.

Background Analysis

Background analysis can vary depending on any guiding questions provided by your professor and the underlying concept or theory that the case is based upon. In general, however, this section of your paper should focus on:

• Providing an overarching analysis of problems identified from the case scenario, including identifying events that stakeholders find challenging or troublesome,
• Identifying assumptions made by each stakeholder and any apparent biases they may exhibit,
• Describing any demands or claims made by or forced upon key stakeholders, and
• Highlighting any issues of concern or complaints expressed by stakeholders in response to those demands or claims.

These aspects of the case are often in the form of behavioral responses expressed by individuals or groups within the organizational setting. However, note that problems in a case situation can also be reflected in data [or the lack thereof] and in the decision-making, operational, cultural, or institutional structure of the organization. Additionally, demands or claims can be either internal and external to the organization [e.g., a case analysis involving a president considering arms sales to Saudi Arabia could include managing internal demands from White House advisors as well as demands from members of Congress].

Throughout this section, present all relevant evidence from the case that supports your analysis. Do not simply claim there is a problem, an assumption, a demand, or a concern; tell the reader what part of the case informed how you identified these background elements.

Identification of Problems

In most case analysis assignments, there are problems, and then there are problems . Each problem can reflect a multitude of underlying symptoms that are detrimental to the interests of the organization. The purpose of identifying problems is to teach students how to differentiate between problems that vary in severity, impact, and relative importance. Given this, problems can be described in three general forms: those that must be addressed immediately, those that should be addressed but the impact is not severe, and those that do not require immediate attention and can be set aside for the time being.

All of the problems you identify from the case should be identified in this section of your paper, with a description based on evidence explaining the problem variances. If the assignment asks you to conduct research to further support your assessment of the problems, include this in your explanation. Remember to cite those sources in a list of references. Use specific evidence from the case and apply appropriate concepts, theories, and models discussed in class or in relevant course readings to highlight and explain the key problems [or problem] that you believe must be solved immediately and describe the underlying symptoms and why they are so critical.

Alternative Solutions

This section is where you provide specific, realistic, and evidence-based solutions to the problems you have identified and make recommendations about how to alleviate the underlying symptomatic conditions impacting the organizational setting. For each solution, you must explain why it was chosen and provide clear evidence to support your reasoning. This can include, for example, course readings and class discussions as well as research resources, such as, books, journal articles, research reports, or government documents. In some cases, your professor may encourage you to include personal, anecdotal experiences as evidence to support why you chose a particular solution or set of solutions. Using anecdotal evidence helps promote reflective thinking about the process of determining what qualifies as a core problem and relevant solution .

Throughout this part of the paper, keep in mind the entire array of problems that must be addressed and describe in detail the solutions that might be implemented to resolve these problems.

Recommended Courses of Action

In some case analysis assignments, your professor may ask you to combine the alternative solutions section with your recommended courses of action. However, it is important to know the difference between the two. A solution refers to the answer to a problem. A course of action refers to a procedure or deliberate sequence of activities adopted to proactively confront a situation, often in the context of accomplishing a goal. In this context, proposed courses of action are based on your analysis of alternative solutions. Your description and justification for pursuing each course of action should represent the overall plan for implementing your recommendations.

For each course of action, you need to explain the rationale for your recommendation in a way that confronts challenges, explains risks, and anticipates any counter-arguments from stakeholders. Do this by considering the strengths and weaknesses of each course of action framed in relation to how the action is expected to resolve the core problems presented, the possible ways the action may affect remaining problems, and how the recommended action will be perceived by each stakeholder.

In addition, you should describe the criteria needed to measure how well the implementation of these actions is working and explain which individuals or groups are responsible for ensuring your recommendations are successful. In addition, always consider the law of unintended consequences. Outline difficulties that may arise in implementing each course of action and describe how implementing the proposed courses of action [either individually or collectively] may lead to new problems [both large and small].

Throughout this section, you must consider the costs and benefits of recommending your courses of action in relation to uncertainties or missing information and the negative consequences of success.

The conclusion should be brief and introspective. Unlike a research paper, the conclusion in a case analysis paper does not include a summary of key findings and their significance, a statement about how the study contributed to existing knowledge, or indicate opportunities for future research.

Begin by synthesizing the core problems presented in the case and the relevance of your recommended solutions. This can include an explanation of what you have learned about the case in the context of your answers to the questions provided by your professor. The conclusion is also where you link what you learned from analyzing the case with the course readings or class discussions. This can further demonstrate your understanding of the relationships between the practical case situation and the theoretical and abstract content of assigned readings and other course content.

Problems to Avoid

The literature on case analysis assignments often includes examples of difficulties students have with applying methods of critical analysis and effectively reporting the results of their assessment of the situation. A common reason cited by scholars is that the application of this type of teaching and learning method is limited to applied fields of social and behavioral sciences and, as a result, writing a case analysis paper can be unfamiliar to most students entering college.

After you have drafted your paper, proofread the narrative flow and revise any of these common errors:

• Unnecessary detail in the background section . The background section should highlight the essential elements of the case based on your analysis. Focus on summarizing the facts and highlighting the key factors that become relevant in the other sections of the paper by eliminating any unnecessary information.
• Analysis relies too much on opinion . Your analysis is interpretive, but the narrative must be connected clearly to evidence from the case and any models and theories discussed in class or in course readings. Any positions or arguments you make should be supported by evidence.
• Analysis does not focus on the most important elements of the case . Your paper should provide a thorough overview of the case. However, the analysis should focus on providing evidence about what you identify are the key events, stakeholders, issues, and problems. Emphasize what you identify as the most critical aspects of the case to be developed throughout your analysis. Be thorough but succinct.
• Writing is too descriptive . A paper with too much descriptive information detracts from your analysis of the complexities of the case situation. Questions about what happened, where, when, and by whom should only be included as essential information leading to your examination of questions related to why, how, and for what purpose.
• Inadequate definition of a core problem and associated symptoms . A common error found in case analysis papers is recommending a solution or course of action without adequately defining or demonstrating that you understand the problem. Make sure you have clearly described the problem and its impact and scope within the organizational setting. Ensure that you have adequately described the root causes w hen describing the symptoms of the problem.
• Recommendations lack specificity . Identify any use of vague statements and indeterminate terminology, such as, “A particular experience” or “a large increase to the budget.” These statements cannot be measured and, as a result, there is no way to evaluate their successful implementation. Provide specific data and use direct language in describing recommended actions.
• Unrealistic, exaggerated, or unattainable recommendations . Review your recommendations to ensure that they are based on the situational facts of the case. Your recommended solutions and courses of action must be based on realistic assumptions and fit within the constraints of the situation. Also note that the case scenario has already happened, therefore, any speculation or arguments about what could have occurred if the circumstances were different should be revised or eliminated.

Bee, Lian Song et al. "Business Students' Perspectives on Case Method Coaching for Problem-Based Learning: Impacts on Student Engagement and Learning Performance in Higher Education." Education & Training 64 (2022): 416-432; The Case Analysis . Fred Meijer Center for Writing and Michigan Authors. Grand Valley State University; Georgallis, Panikos and Kayleigh Bruijn. "Sustainability Teaching using Case-Based Debates." Journal of International Education in Business 15 (2022): 147-163; Hawes, Jon M. "Teaching is Not Telling: The Case Method as a Form of Interactive Learning." Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education 5 (Winter 2004): 47-54; Georgallis, Panikos, and Kayleigh Bruijn. "Sustainability Teaching Using Case-based Debates." Journal of International Education in Business 15 (2022): 147-163; .Dean,  Kathy Lund and Charles J. Fornaciari. "How to Create and Use Experiential Case-Based Exercises in a Management Classroom." Journal of Management Education 26 (October 2002): 586-603; Klebba, Joanne M. and Janet G. Hamilton. "Structured Case Analysis: Developing Critical Thinking Skills in a Marketing Case Course." Journal of Marketing Education 29 (August 2007): 132-137, 139; Klein, Norman. "The Case Discussion Method Revisited: Some Questions about Student Skills." Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal 6 (November 1981): 30-32; Mukherjee, Arup. "Effective Use of In-Class Mini Case Analysis for Discovery Learning in an Undergraduate MIS Course." The Journal of Computer Information Systems 40 (Spring 2000): 15-23; Pessoa, Silviaet al. "Scaffolding the Case Analysis in an Organizational Behavior Course: Making Analytical Language Explicit." Journal of Management Education 46 (2022): 226-251: Ramsey, V. J. and L. D. Dodge. "Case Analysis: A Structured Approach." Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal 6 (November 1981): 27-29; Schweitzer, Karen. "How to Write and Format a Business Case Study." ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/how-to-write-and-format-a-business-case-study-466324 (accessed December 5, 2022); Reddy, C. D. "Teaching Research Methodology: Everything's a Case." Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 18 (December 2020): 178-188; Volpe, Guglielmo. "Case Teaching in Economics: History, Practice and Evidence." Cogent Economics and Finance 3 (December 2015). doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2015.1120977.

Writing Tip

Ca se Study and Case Analysis Are Not the Same!

Confusion often exists between what it means to write a paper that uses a case study research design and writing a paper that analyzes a case; they are two different types of approaches to learning in the social and behavioral sciences. Professors as well as educational researchers contribute to this confusion because they often use the term "case study" when describing the subject of analysis for a case analysis paper. But you are not studying a case for the purpose of generating a comprehensive, multi-faceted understanding of a research problem. R ather, you are critically analyzing a specific scenario to argue logically for recommended solutions and courses of action that lead to optimal outcomes applicable to professional practice.

To avoid any confusion, here are twelve characteristics that delineate the differences between writing a paper using the case study research method and writing a case analysis paper:

• Case study is a method of in-depth research and rigorous inquiry ; case analysis is a reliable method of teaching and learning . A case study is a modality of research that investigates a phenomenon for the purpose of creating new knowledge, solving a problem, or testing a hypothesis using empirical evidence derived from the case being studied. Often, the results are used to generalize about a larger population or within a wider context. The writing adheres to the traditional standards of a scholarly research study. A case analysis is a pedagogical tool used to teach students how to reflect and think critically about a practical, real-life problem in an organizational setting.
• The researcher is responsible for identifying the case to study; a case analysis is assigned by your professor . As the researcher, you choose the case study to investigate in support of obtaining new knowledge and understanding about the research problem. The case in a case analysis assignment is almost always provided, and sometimes written, by your professor and either given to every student in class to analyze individually or to a small group of students, or students select a case to analyze from a predetermined list.
• A case study is indeterminate and boundless; a case analysis is predetermined and confined . A case study can be almost anything [see item 9 below] as long as it relates directly to examining the research problem. This relationship is the only limit to what a researcher can choose as the subject of their case study. The content of a case analysis is determined by your professor and its parameters are well-defined and limited to elucidating insights of practical value applied to practice.
• Case study is fact-based and describes actual events or situations; case analysis can be entirely fictional or adapted from an actual situation . The entire content of a case study must be grounded in reality to be a valid subject of investigation in an empirical research study. A case analysis only needs to set the stage for critically examining a situation in practice and, therefore, can be entirely fictional or adapted, all or in-part, from an actual situation.
• Research using a case study method must adhere to principles of intellectual honesty and academic integrity; a case analysis scenario can include misleading or false information . A case study paper must report research objectively and factually to ensure that any findings are understood to be logically correct and trustworthy. A case analysis scenario may include misleading or false information intended to deliberately distract from the central issues of the case. The purpose is to teach students how to sort through conflicting or useless information in order to come up with the preferred solution. Any use of misleading or false information in academic research is considered unethical.
• Case study is linked to a research problem; case analysis is linked to a practical situation or scenario . In the social sciences, the subject of an investigation is most often framed as a problem that must be researched in order to generate new knowledge leading to a solution. Case analysis narratives are grounded in real life scenarios for the purpose of examining the realities of decision-making behavior and processes within organizational settings. A case analysis assignments include a problem or set of problems to be analyzed. However, the goal is centered around the act of identifying and evaluating courses of action leading to best possible outcomes.
• The purpose of a case study is to create new knowledge through research; the purpose of a case analysis is to teach new understanding . Case studies are a choice of methodological design intended to create new knowledge about resolving a research problem. A case analysis is a mode of teaching and learning intended to create new understanding and an awareness of uncertainty applied to practice through acts of critical thinking and reflection.
• A case study seeks to identify the best possible solution to a research problem; case analysis can have an indeterminate set of solutions or outcomes . Your role in studying a case is to discover the most logical, evidence-based ways to address a research problem. A case analysis assignment rarely has a single correct answer because one of the goals is to force students to confront the real life dynamics of uncertainly, ambiguity, and missing or conflicting information within professional practice. Under these conditions, a perfect outcome or solution almost never exists.
• Case study is unbounded and relies on gathering external information; case analysis is a self-contained subject of analysis . The scope of a case study chosen as a method of research is bounded. However, the researcher is free to gather whatever information and data is necessary to investigate its relevance to understanding the research problem. For a case analysis assignment, your professor will often ask you to examine solutions or recommended courses of action based solely on facts and information from the case.
• Case study can be a person, place, object, issue, event, condition, or phenomenon; a case analysis is a carefully constructed synopsis of events, situations, and behaviors . The research problem dictates the type of case being studied and, therefore, the design can encompass almost anything tangible as long as it fulfills the objective of generating new knowledge and understanding. A case analysis is in the form of a narrative containing descriptions of facts, situations, processes, rules, and behaviors within a particular setting and under a specific set of circumstances.
• Case study can represent an open-ended subject of inquiry; a case analysis is a narrative about something that has happened in the past . A case study is not restricted by time and can encompass an event or issue with no temporal limit or end. For example, the current war in Ukraine can be used as a case study of how medical personnel help civilians during a large military conflict, even though circumstances around this event are still evolving. A case analysis can be used to elicit critical thinking about current or future situations in practice, but the case itself is a narrative about something finite and that has taken place in the past.
• Multiple case studies can be used in a research study; case analysis involves examining a single scenario . Case study research can use two or more cases to examine a problem, often for the purpose of conducting a comparative investigation intended to discover hidden relationships, document emerging trends, or determine variations among different examples. A case analysis assignment typically describes a stand-alone, self-contained situation and any comparisons among cases are conducted during in-class discussions and/or student presentations.

The Case Analysis . Fred Meijer Center for Writing and Michigan Authors. Grand Valley State University; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Ramsey, V. J. and L. D. Dodge. "Case Analysis: A Structured Approach." Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal 6 (November 1981): 27-29; Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods . 6th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2017; Crowe, Sarah et al. “The Case Study Approach.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 11 (2011):  doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-100; Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods . 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing; 1994.

• << Previous: Reviewing Collected Works
• Next: Writing a Case Study >>
• 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, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods

What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods

Published on May 8, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 20, 2023.

A case study is a detailed study of a specific subject, such as a person, group, place, event, organization, 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 analyze the case, other interesting articles.

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

TipIf your research is more practical in nature and aims to simultaneously investigate an issue as you solve it, consider conducting action research instead.

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.

Example of an outlying case studyIn the 1960s the town of Roseto, Pennsylvania was discovered to have extremely low rates of heart disease compared to the US average. It became an important case study for understanding previously neglected causes of heart disease.

However, you can also choose a more common or representative case to exemplify a particular category, experience or phenomenon.

Example of a representative case studyIn the 1920s, two sociologists used Muncie, Indiana as a case study of a typical American city that supposedly exemplified the changing culture of the US at the time.

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.

Example of a mixed methods case studyFor a case study of a wind farm development in a rural area, you could collect quantitative data on employment rates and business revenue, collect qualitative data on local people’s perceptions and experiences, and analyze local and national media coverage of the development.

The aim is to gain as thorough an understanding as possible of the case and its context.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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 analyze 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.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Ecological validity

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

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 Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, November 20). What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved September 20, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/case-study/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, primary vs. secondary sources | difference & examples, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is action research | definition & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Designing and Conducting Case Studies

This guide examines case studies, a form of qualitative descriptive research that is used to look at individuals, a small group of participants, or a group as a whole. Researchers collect data about participants using participant and direct observations, interviews, protocols, tests, examinations of records, and collections of writing samples. Starting with a definition of the case study, the guide moves to a brief history of this research method. Using several well documented case studies, the guide then looks at applications and methods including data collection and analysis. A discussion of ways to handle validity, reliability, and generalizability follows, with special attention to case studies as they are applied to composition studies. Finally, this guide examines the strengths and weaknesses of case studies.

Definition and Overview

Case study refers to the collection and presentation of detailed information about a particular participant or small group, frequently including the accounts of subjects themselves. A form of qualitative descriptive research, the case study looks intensely at an individual or small participant pool, drawing conclusions only about that participant or group and only in that specific context. Researchers do not focus on the discovery of a universal, generalizable truth, nor do they typically look for cause-effect relationships; instead, emphasis is placed on exploration and description.

Case studies typically examine the interplay of all variables in order to provide as complete an understanding of an event or situation as possible. This type of comprehensive understanding is arrived at through a process known as thick description, which involves an in-depth description of the entity being evaluated, the circumstances under which it is used, the characteristics of the people involved in it, and the nature of the community in which it is located. Thick description also involves interpreting the meaning of demographic and descriptive data such as cultural norms and mores, community values, ingrained attitudes, and motives.

Unlike quantitative methods of research, like the survey, which focus on the questions of who, what, where, how much, and how many, and archival analysis, which often situates the participant in some form of historical context, case studies are the preferred strategy when how or why questions are asked. Likewise, they are the preferred method when the researcher has little control over the events, and when there is a contemporary focus within a real life context. In addition, unlike more specifically directed experiments, case studies require a problem that seeks a holistic understanding of the event or situation in question using inductive logic--reasoning from specific to more general terms.

In scholarly circles, case studies are frequently discussed within the context of qualitative research and naturalistic inquiry. Case studies are often referred to interchangeably with ethnography, field study, and participant observation. The underlying philosophical assumptions in the case are similar to these types of qualitative research because each takes place in a natural setting (such as a classroom, neighborhood, or private home), and strives for a more holistic interpretation of the event or situation under study.

Unlike more statistically-based studies which search for quantifiable data, the goal of a case study is to offer new variables and questions for further research. F.H. Giddings, a sociologist in the early part of the century, compares statistical methods to the case study on the basis that the former are concerned with the distribution of a particular trait, or a small number of traits, in a population, whereas the case study is concerned with the whole variety of traits to be found in a particular instance" (Hammersley 95).

Case studies are not a new form of research; naturalistic inquiry was the primary research tool until the development of the scientific method. The fields of sociology and anthropology are credited with the primary shaping of the concept as we know it today. However, case study research has drawn from a number of other areas as well: the clinical methods of doctors; the casework technique being developed by social workers; the methods of historians and anthropologists, plus the qualitative descriptions provided by quantitative researchers like LePlay; and, in the case of Robert Park, the techniques of newspaper reporters and novelists.

Park was an ex-newspaper reporter and editor who became very influential in developing sociological case studies at the University of Chicago in the 1920s. As a newspaper professional he coined the term "scientific" or "depth" reporting: the description of local events in a way that pointed to major social trends. Park viewed the sociologist as "merely a more accurate, responsible, and scientific reporter." Park stressed the variety and value of human experience. He believed that sociology sought to arrive at natural, but fluid, laws and generalizations in regard to human nature and society. These laws weren't static laws of the kind sought by many positivists and natural law theorists, but rather, they were laws of becoming--with a constant possibility of change. Park encouraged students to get out of the library, to quit looking at papers and books, and to view the constant experiment of human experience. He writes, "Go and sit in the lounges of the luxury hotels and on the doorsteps of the flophouses; sit on the Gold Coast settees and on the slum shakedowns; sit in the Orchestra Hall and in the Star and Garter Burlesque. In short, gentlemen [sic], go get the seats of your pants dirty in real research."

But over the years, case studies have drawn their share of criticism. In fact, the method had its detractors from the start. In the 1920s, the debate between pro-qualitative and pro-quantitative became quite heated. Case studies, when compared to statistics, were considered by many to be unscientific. From the 1930's on, the rise of positivism had a growing influence on quantitative methods in sociology. People wanted static, generalizable laws in science. The sociological positivists were looking for stable laws of social phenomena. They criticized case study research because it failed to provide evidence of inter subjective agreement. Also, they condemned it because of the few number of cases studied and that the under-standardized character of their descriptions made generalization impossible. By the 1950s, quantitative methods, in the form of survey research, had become the dominant sociological approach and case study had become a minority practice.

Educational Applications

The 1950's marked the dawning of a new era in case study research, namely that of the utilization of the case study as a teaching method. "Instituted at Harvard Business School in the 1950s as a primary method of teaching, cases have since been used in classrooms and lecture halls alike, either as part of a course of study or as the main focus of the course to which other teaching material is added" (Armisted 1984). The basic purpose of instituting the case method as a teaching strategy was "to transfer much of the responsibility for learning from the teacher on to the student, whose role, as a result, shifts away from passive absorption toward active construction" (Boehrer 1990). Through careful examination and discussion of various cases, "students learn to identify actual problems, to recognize key players and their agendas, and to become aware of those aspects of the situation that contribute to the problem" (Merseth 1991). In addition, students are encouraged to "generate their own analysis of the problems under consideration, to develop their own solutions, and to practically apply their own knowledge of theory to these problems" (Boyce 1993). Along the way, students also develop "the power to analyze and to master a tangled circumstance by identifying and delineating important factors; the ability to utilize ideas, to test them against facts, and to throw them into fresh combinations" (Merseth 1991).

In addition to the practical application and testing of scholarly knowledge, case discussions can also help students prepare for real-world problems, situations and crises by providing an approximation of various professional environments (i.e. classroom, board room, courtroom, or hospital). Thus, through the examination of specific cases, students are given the opportunity to work out their own professional issues through the trials, tribulations, experiences, and research findings of others. An obvious advantage to this mode of instruction is that it allows students the exposure to settings and contexts that they might not otherwise experience. For example, a student interested in studying the effects of poverty on minority secondary student's grade point averages and S.A.T. scores could access and analyze information from schools as geographically diverse as Los Angeles, New York City, Miami, and New Mexico without ever having to leave the classroom.

The case study method also incorporates the idea that students can learn from one another "by engaging with each other and with each other's ideas, by asserting something and then having it questioned, challenged and thrown back at them so that they can reflect on what they hear, and then refine what they say" (Boehrer 1990). In summary, students can direct their own learning by formulating questions and taking responsibility for the study.

Types and Design Concerns

Researchers use multiple methods and approaches to conduct case studies.

Types of Case Studies

Under the more generalized category of case study exist several subdivisions, each of which is custom selected for use depending upon the goals and/or objectives of the investigator. These types of case study include the following:

Illustrative Case Studies These are primarily descriptive studies. They typically utilize one or two instances of an event to show what a situation is like. Illustrative case studies serve primarily to make the unfamiliar familiar and to give readers a common language about the topic in question.

Exploratory (or pilot) Case Studies These are condensed case studies performed before implementing a large scale investigation. Their basic function is to help identify questions and select types of measurement prior to the main investigation. The primary pitfall of this type of study is that initial findings may seem convincing enough to be released prematurely as conclusions.

Cumulative Case Studies These serve to aggregate information from several sites collected at different times. The idea behind these studies is the collection of past studies will allow for greater generalization without additional cost or time being expended on new, possibly repetitive studies.

Critical Instance Case Studies These examine one or more sites for either the purpose of examining a situation of unique interest with little to no interest in generalizability, or to call into question or challenge a highly generalized or universal assertion. This method is useful for answering cause and effect questions.

Identifying a Theoretical Perspective

Much of the case study's design is inherently determined for researchers, depending on the field from which they are working. In composition studies, researchers are typically working from a qualitative, descriptive standpoint. In contrast, physicists will approach their research from a more quantitative perspective. Still, in designing the study, researchers need to make explicit the questions to be explored and the theoretical perspective from which they will approach the case. The three most commonly adopted theories are listed below:

Individual Theories These focus primarily on the individual development, cognitive behavior, personality, learning and disability, and interpersonal interactions of a particular subject.

Organizational Theories These focus on bureaucracies, institutions, organizational structure and functions, or excellence in organizational performance.

Social Theories These focus on urban development, group behavior, cultural institutions, or marketplace functions.

Two examples of case studies are used consistently throughout this chapter. The first, a study produced by Berkenkotter, Huckin, and Ackerman (1988), looks at a first year graduate student's initiation into an academic writing program. The study uses participant-observer and linguistic data collecting techniques to assess the student's knowledge of appropriate discourse conventions. Using the pseudonym Nate to refer to the subject, the study sought to illuminate the particular experience rather than to generalize about the experience of fledgling academic writers collectively.

For example, in Berkenkotter, Huckin, and Ackerman's (1988) study we are told that the researchers are interested in disciplinary communities. In the first paragraph, they ask what constitutes membership in a disciplinary community and how achieving membership might affect a writer's understanding and production of texts. In the third paragraph they state that researchers must negotiate their claims "within the context of his sub specialty's accepted knowledge and methodology." In the next paragraph they ask, "How is literacy acquired? What is the process through which novices gain community membership? And what factors either aid or hinder students learning the requisite linguistic behaviors?" This introductory section ends with a paragraph in which the study's authors claim that during the course of the study, the subject, Nate, successfully makes the transition from "skilled novice" to become an initiated member of the academic discourse community and that his texts exhibit linguistic changes which indicate this transition. In the next section the authors make explicit the sociolinguistic theoretical and methodological assumptions on which the study is based (1988). Thus the reader has a good understanding of the authors' theoretical background and purpose in conducting the study even before it is explicitly stated on the fourth page of the study. "Our purpose was to examine the effects of the educational context on one graduate student's production of texts as he wrote in different courses and for different faculty members over the academic year 1984-85." The goal of the study then, was to explore the idea that writers must be initiated into a writing community, and that this initiation will change the way one writes.

The second example is Janet Emig's (1971) study of the composing process of a group of twelfth graders. In this study, Emig seeks to answer the question of what happens to the self as a result educational stimuli in terms of academic writing. The case study used methods such as protocol analysis, tape-recorded interviews, and discourse analysis.

In the case of Janet Emig's (1971) study of the composing process of eight twelfth graders, four specific hypotheses were made:

• Twelfth grade writers engage in two modes of composing: reflexive and extensive.
• These differences can be ascertained and characterized through having the writers compose aloud their composition process.
• A set of implied stylistic principles governs the writing process.
• For twelfth grade writers, extensive writing occurs chiefly as a school-sponsored activity, or reflexive, as a self-sponsored activity.

In this study, the chief distinction is between the two dominant modes of composing among older, secondary school students. The distinctions are:

• The reflexive mode, which focuses on the writer's thoughts and feelings.
• The extensive mode, which focuses on conveying a message.

Emig also outlines the specific questions which guided the research in the opening pages of her Review of Literature , preceding the report.

Designing a Case Study

After considering the different sub categories of case study and identifying a theoretical perspective, researchers can begin to design their study. Research design is the string of logic that ultimately links the data to be collected and the conclusions to be drawn to the initial questions of the study. Typically, research designs deal with at least four problems:

• What questions to study
• What data are relevant
• What data to collect
• How to analyze that data

In other words, a research design is basically a blueprint for getting from the beginning to the end of a study. The beginning is an initial set of questions to be answered, and the end is some set of conclusions about those questions.

Because case studies are conducted on topics as diverse as Anglo-Saxon Literature (Thrane 1986) and AIDS prevention (Van Vugt 1994), it is virtually impossible to outline any strict or universal method or design for conducting the case study. However, Robert K. Yin (1993) does offer five basic components of a research design:

• A study's questions.
• A study's propositions (if any).
• A study's units of analysis.
• The logic that links the data to the propositions.
• The criteria for interpreting the findings.

In addition to these five basic components, Yin also stresses the importance of clearly articulating one's theoretical perspective, determining the goals of the study, selecting one's subject(s), selecting the appropriate method(s) of collecting data, and providing some considerations to the composition of the final report.

Conducting Case Studies

To obtain as complete a picture of the participant as possible, case study researchers can employ a variety of approaches and methods. These approaches, methods, and related issues are discussed in depth in this section.

Method: Single or Multi-modal?

To obtain as complete a picture of the participant as possible, case study researchers can employ a variety of methods. Some common methods include interviews , protocol analyses, field studies, and participant-observations. Emig (1971) chose to use several methods of data collection. Her sources included conversations with the students, protocol analysis, discrete observations of actual composition, writing samples from each student, and school records (Lauer and Asher 1988).

Berkenkotter, Huckin, and Ackerman (1988) collected data by observing classrooms, conducting faculty and student interviews, collecting self reports from the subject, and by looking at the subject's written work.

A study that was criticized for using a single method model was done by Flower and Hayes (1984). In this study that explores the ways in which writers use different forms of knowing to create space, the authors used only protocol analysis to gather data. The study came under heavy fire because of their decision to use only one method.

Participant Selection

Case studies can use one participant, or a small group of participants. However, it is important that the participant pool remain relatively small. The participants can represent a diverse cross section of society, but this isn't necessary.

For example, the Berkenkotter, Huckin, and Ackerman (1988) study looked at just one participant, Nate. By contrast, in Janet Emig's (1971) study of the composition process of twelfth graders, eight participants were selected representing a diverse cross section of the community, with volunteers from an all-white upper-middle-class suburban school, an all-black inner-city school, a racially mixed lower-middle-class school, an economically and racially mixed school, and a university school.

Often, a brief "case history" is done on the participants of the study in order to provide researchers with a clearer understanding of their participants, as well as some insight as to how their own personal histories might affect the outcome of the study. For instance, in Emig's study, the investigator had access to the school records of five of the participants, and to standardized test scores for the remaining three. Also made available to the researcher was the information that three of the eight students were selected as NCTE Achievement Award winners. These personal histories can be useful in later stages of the study when data are being analyzed and conclusions drawn.

Data Collection

There are six types of data collected in case studies:

• Archival records.
• Interviews.
• Direct observation.
• Participant observation.

In the field of composition research, these six sources might be:

• A writer's drafts.
• School records of student writers.
• Transcripts of interviews with a writer.
• Transcripts of conversations between writers (and protocols).
• Videotapes and notes from direct field observations.
• Hard copies of a writer's work on computer.

Depending on whether researchers have chosen to use a single or multi-modal approach for the case study, they may choose to collect data from one or any combination of these sources.

Protocols, that is, transcriptions of participants talking aloud about what they are doing as they do it, have been particularly common in composition case studies. For example, in Emig's (1971) study, the students were asked, in four different sessions, to give oral autobiographies of their writing experiences and to compose aloud three themes in the presence of a tape recorder and the investigator.

In some studies, only one method of data collection is conducted. For example, the Flower and Hayes (1981) report on the cognitive process theory of writing depends on protocol analysis alone. However, using multiple sources of evidence to increase the reliability and validity of the data can be advantageous.

Case studies are likely to be much more convincing and accurate if they are based on several different sources of information, following a corroborating mode. This conclusion is echoed among many composition researchers. For example, in her study of predrafting processes of high and low-apprehensive writers, Cynthia Selfe (1985) argues that because "methods of indirect observation provide only an incomplete reflection of the complex set of processes involved in composing, a combination of several such methods should be used to gather data in any one study." Thus, in this study, Selfe collected her data from protocols, observations of students role playing their writing processes, audio taped interviews with the students, and videotaped observations of the students in the process of composing.

It can be said then, that cross checking data from multiple sources can help provide a multidimensional profile of composing activities in a particular setting. Sharan Merriam (1985) suggests "checking, verifying, testing, probing, and confirming collected data as you go, arguing that this process will follow in a funnel-like design resulting in less data gathering in later phases of the study along with a congruent increase in analysis checking, verifying, and confirming."

It is important to note that in case studies, as in any qualitative descriptive research, while researchers begin their studies with one or several questions driving the inquiry (which influence the key factors the researcher will be looking for during data collection), a researcher may find new key factors emerging during data collection. These might be unexpected patterns or linguistic features which become evident only during the course of the research. While not bearing directly on the researcher's guiding questions, these variables may become the basis for new questions asked at the end of the report, thus linking to the possibility of further research.

Data Analysis

As the information is collected, researchers strive to make sense of their data. Generally, researchers interpret their data in one of two ways: holistically or through coding. Holistic analysis does not attempt to break the evidence into parts, but rather to draw conclusions based on the text as a whole. Flower and Hayes (1981), for example, make inferences from entire sections of their students' protocols, rather than searching through the transcripts to look for isolatable characteristics.

However, composition researchers commonly interpret their data by coding, that is by systematically searching data to identify and/or categorize specific observable actions or characteristics. These observable actions then become the key variables in the study. Sharan Merriam (1988) suggests seven analytic frameworks for the organization and presentation of data:

• The role of participants.
• The network analysis of formal and informal exchanges among groups.
• Historical.
• Thematical.
• Ritual and symbolism.
• Critical incidents that challenge or reinforce fundamental beliefs, practices, and values.

There are two purposes of these frameworks: to look for patterns among the data and to look for patterns that give meaning to the case study.

As stated above, while most researchers begin their case studies expecting to look for particular observable characteristics, it is not unusual for key variables to emerge during data collection. Typical variables coded in case studies of writers include pauses writers make in the production of a text, the use of specific linguistic units (such as nouns or verbs), and writing processes (planning, drafting, revising, and editing). In the Berkenkotter, Huckin, and Ackerman (1988) study, for example, researchers coded the participant's texts for use of connectives, discourse demonstratives, average sentence length, off-register words, use of the first person pronoun, and the ratio of definite articles to indefinite articles.

Since coding is inherently subjective, more than one coder is usually employed. In the Berkenkotter, Huckin, and Ackerman (1988) study, for example, three rhetoricians were employed to code the participant's texts for off-register phrases. The researchers established the agreement among the coders before concluding that the participant used fewer off-register words as the graduate program progressed.

Composing the Case Study Report

In the many forms it can take, "a case study is generically a story; it presents the concrete narrative detail of actual, or at least realistic events, it has a plot, exposition, characters, and sometimes even dialogue" (Boehrer 1990). Generally, case study reports are extensively descriptive, with "the most problematic issue often referred to as being the determination of the right combination of description and analysis" (1990). Typically, authors address each step of the research process, and attempt to give the reader as much context as possible for the decisions made in the research design and for the conclusions drawn.

This contextualization usually includes a detailed explanation of the researchers' theoretical positions, of how those theories drove the inquiry or led to the guiding research questions, of the participants' backgrounds, of the processes of data collection, of the training and limitations of the coders, along with a strong attempt to make connections between the data and the conclusions evident.

Although the Berkenkotter, Huckin, and Ackerman (1988) study does not, case study reports often include the reactions of the participants to the study or to the researchers' conclusions. Because case studies tend to be exploratory, most end with implications for further study. Here researchers may identify significant variables that emerged during the research and suggest studies related to these, or the authors may suggest further general questions that their case study generated.

For example, Emig's (1971) study concludes with a section dedicated solely to the topic of implications for further research, in which she suggests several means by which this particular study could have been improved, as well as questions and ideas raised by this study which other researchers might like to address, such as: is there a correlation between a certain personality and a certain composing process profile (e.g. is there a positive correlation between ego strength and persistence in revising)?

Also included in Emig's study is a section dedicated to implications for teaching, which outlines the pedagogical ramifications of the study's findings for teachers currently involved in high school writing programs.

Sharan Merriam (1985) also offers several suggestions for alternative presentations of data:

• Prepare specialized condensations for appropriate groups.
• Replace narrative sections with a series of answers to open-ended questions.
• Present "skimmer's" summaries at beginning of each section.
• Incorporate headlines that encapsulate information from text.
• Prepare analytic summaries with supporting data appendixes.
• Present data in colorful and/or unique graphic representations.

Issues of Validity and Reliability

Once key variables have been identified, they can be analyzed. Reliability becomes a key concern at this stage, and many case study researchers go to great lengths to ensure that their interpretations of the data will be both reliable and valid. Because issues of validity and reliability are an important part of any study in the social sciences, it is important to identify some ways of dealing with results.

Multi-modal case study researchers often balance the results of their coding with data from interviews or writer's reflections upon their own work. Consequently, the researchers' conclusions become highly contextualized. For example, in a case study which looked at the time spent in different stages of the writing process, Berkenkotter concluded that her participant, Donald Murray, spent more time planning his essays than in other writing stages. The report of this case study is followed by Murray's reply, wherein he agrees with some of Berkenkotter's conclusions and disagrees with others.

As is the case with other research methodologies, issues of external validity, construct validity, and reliability need to be carefully considered.

Commentary on Case Studies

Researchers often debate the relative merits of particular methods, among them case study. In this section, we comment on two key issues. To read the commentaries, choose any of the items below:

Strengths and Weaknesses of Case Studies

Most case study advocates point out that case studies produce much more detailed information than what is available through a statistical analysis. Advocates will also hold that while statistical methods might be able to deal with situations where behavior is homogeneous and routine, case studies are needed to deal with creativity, innovation, and context. Detractors argue that case studies are difficult to generalize because of inherent subjectivity and because they are based on qualitative subjective data, generalizable only to a particular context.

Flexibility

The case study approach is a comparatively flexible method of scientific research. Because its project designs seem to emphasize exploration rather than prescription or prediction, researchers are comparatively freer to discover and address issues as they arise in their experiments. In addition, the looser format of case studies allows researchers to begin with broad questions and narrow their focus as their experiment progresses rather than attempt to predict every possible outcome before the experiment is conducted.

Emphasis on Context

By seeking to understand as much as possible about a single subject or small group of subjects, case studies specialize in "deep data," or "thick description"--information based on particular contexts that can give research results a more human face. This emphasis can help bridge the gap between abstract research and concrete practice by allowing researchers to compare their firsthand observations with the quantitative results obtained through other methods of research.

Inherent Subjectivity

"The case study has long been stereotyped as the weak sibling among social science methods," and is often criticized as being too subjective and even pseudo-scientific. Likewise, "investigators who do case studies are often regarded as having deviated from their academic disciplines, and their investigations as having insufficient precision (that is, quantification), objectivity and rigor" (Yin 1989). Opponents cite opportunities for subjectivity in the implementation, presentation, and evaluation of case study research. The approach relies on personal interpretation of data and inferences. Results may not be generalizable, are difficult to test for validity, and rarely offer a problem-solving prescription. Simply put, relying on one or a few subjects as a basis for cognitive extrapolations runs the risk of inferring too much from what might be circumstance.

High Investment

Case studies can involve learning more about the subjects being tested than most researchers would care to know--their educational background, emotional background, perceptions of themselves and their surroundings, their likes, dislikes, and so on. Because of its emphasis on "deep data," the case study is out of reach for many large-scale research projects which look at a subject pool in the tens of thousands. A budget request of $10,000 to examine 200 subjects sounds more efficient than a similar request to examine four subjects.

Ethical Considerations

Researchers conducting case studies should consider certain ethical issues. For example, many educational case studies are often financed by people who have, either directly or indirectly, power over both those being studied and those conducting the investigation (1985). This conflict of interests can hinder the credibility of the study.

The personal integrity, sensitivity, and possible prejudices and/or biases of the investigators need to be taken into consideration as well. Personal biases can creep into how the research is conducted, alternative research methods used, and the preparation of surveys and questionnaires.

A common complaint in case study research is that investigators change direction during the course of the study unaware that their original research design was inadequate for the revised investigation. Thus, the researchers leave unknown gaps and biases in the study. To avoid this, researchers should report preliminary findings so that the likelihood of bias will be reduced.

Concerns about Reliability, Validity, and Generalizability

Merriam (1985) offers several suggestions for how case study researchers might actively combat the popular attacks on the validity, reliability, and generalizability of case studies:

• Prolong the Processes of Data Gathering on Site: This will help to insure the accuracy of the findings by providing the researcher with more concrete information upon which to formulate interpretations.
• Employ the Process of "Triangulation": Use a variety of data sources as opposed to relying solely upon one avenue of observation. One example of such a data check would be what McClintock, Brannon, and Maynard (1985) refer to as a "case cluster method," that is, when a single unit within a larger case is randomly sampled, and that data treated quantitatively." For instance, in Emig's (1971) study, the case cluster method was employed, singling out the productivity of a single student named Lynn. This cluster profile included an advanced case history of the subject, specific examination and analysis of individual compositions and protocols, and extensive interview sessions. The seven remaining students were then compared with the case of Lynn, to ascertain if there are any shared, or unique dimensions to the composing process engaged in by these eight students.
• Conduct Member Checks: Initiate and maintain an active corroboration on the interpretation of data between the researcher and those who provided the data. In other words, talk to your subjects.
• Collect Referential Materials: Complement the file of materials from the actual site with additional document support. For example, Emig (1971) supports her initial propositions with historical accounts by writers such as T.S. Eliot, James Joyce, and D.H. Lawrence. Emig also cites examples of theoretical research done with regards to the creative process, as well as examples of empirical research dealing with the writing of adolescents. Specific attention is then given to the four stages description of the composing process delineated by Helmoltz, Wallas, and Cowley, as it serves as the focal point in this study.
• Engage in Peer Consultation: Prior to composing the final draft of the report, researchers should consult with colleagues in order to establish validity through pooled judgment.

Although little can be done to combat challenges concerning the generalizability of case studies, "most writers suggest that qualitative research should be judged as credible and confirmable as opposed to valid and reliable" (Merriam 1985). Likewise, it has been argued that "rather than transplanting statistical, quantitative notions of generalizability and thus finding qualitative research inadequate, it makes more sense to develop an understanding of generalization that is congruent with the basic characteristics of qualitative inquiry" (1985). After all, criticizing the case study method for being ungeneralizable is comparable to criticizing a washing machine for not being able to tell the correct time. In other words, it is unjust to criticize a method for not being able to do something which it was never originally designed to do in the first place.

Annotated Bibliography

Armisted, C. (1984). How Useful are Case Studies. Training and Development Journal, 38 (2), 75-77.

This article looks at eight types of case studies, offers pros and cons of using case studies in the classroom, and gives suggestions for successfully writing and using case studies.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1997). Beyond Methods: Components of Second Language Teacher Education . New York: McGraw-Hill.

A compilation of various research essays which address issues of language teacher education. Essays included are: "Non-native reading research and theory" by Lee, "The case for Psycholinguistics" by VanPatten, and "Assessment and Second Language Teaching" by Gradman and Reed.

Bartlett, L. (1989). A Question of Good Judgment; Interpretation Theory and Qualitative Enquiry Address. 70th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco.

Bartlett selected "quasi-historical" methodology, which focuses on the "truth" found in case records, as one that will provide "good judgments" in educational inquiry. He argues that although the method is not comprehensive, it can try to connect theory with practice.

Baydere, S. et. al. (1993). Multimedia conferencing as a tool for collaborative writing: a case study in Computer Supported Collaborative Writing. New York: Springer-Verlag.

The case study by Baydere et. al. is just one of the many essays in this book found in the series "Computer Supported Cooperative Work." Denley, Witefield and May explore similar issues in their essay, "A case study in task analysis for the design of a collaborative document production system."

Berkenkotter, C., Huckin, T., N., & Ackerman J. (1988). Conventions, Conversations, and the Writer: Case Study of a Student in a Rhetoric Ph.D. Program. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 9-44.

The authors focused on how the writing of their subject, Nate or Ackerman, changed as he became more acquainted or familiar with his field's discourse community.

Berninger, V., W., and Gans, B., M. (1986). Language Profiles in Nonspeaking Individuals of Normal Intelligence with Severe Cerebral Palsy. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 2, 45-50.

Argues that generalizations about language abilities in patients with severe cerebral palsy (CP) should be avoided. Standardized tests of different levels of processing oral language, of processing written language, and of producing written language were administered to 3 male participants (aged 9, 16, and 40 yrs).

Bockman, J., R., and Couture, B. (1984). The Case Method in Technical Communication: Theory and Models. Texas: Association of Teachers of Technical Writing.

Examines the study and teaching of technical writing, communication of technical information, and the case method in terms of those applications.

Boehrer, J. (1990). Teaching With Cases: Learning to Question. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 42 41-57.

This article discusses the origins of the case method, looks at the question of what is a case, gives ideas about learning in case teaching, the purposes it can serve in the classroom, the ground rules for the case discussion, including the role of the question, and new directions for case teaching.

Bowman, W. R. (1993). Evaluating JTPA Programs for Economically Disadvantaged Adults: A Case Study of Utah and General Findings . Washington: National Commission for Employment Policy.

"To encourage state-level evaluations of JTPA, the Commission and the State of Utah co-sponsored this report on the effectiveness of JTPA Title II programs for adults in Utah. The technique used is non-experimental and the comparison group was selected from registrants with Utah's Employment Security. In a step-by-step approach, the report documents how non-experimental techniques can be applied and several specific technical issues can be addressed."

Boyce, A. (1993) The Case Study Approach for Pedagogists. Annual Meeting of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. (Address). Washington DC.

This paper addresses how case studies 1) bridge the gap between teaching theory and application, 2) enable students to analyze problems and develop solutions for situations that will be encountered in the real world of teaching, and 3) helps students to evaluate the feasibility of alternatives and to understand the ramifications of a particular course of action.

Carson, J. (1993) The Case Study: Ideal Home of WAC Quantitative and Qualitative Data. Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication. (Address). San Diego.

"Increasingly, one of the most pressing questions for WAC advocates is how to keep [WAC] programs going in the face of numerous difficulties. Case histories offer the best chance for fashioning rhetorical arguments to keep WAC programs going because they offer the opportunity to provide a coherent narrative that contextualizes all documents and data, including what is generally considered scientific data. A case study of the WAC program, . . . at Robert Morris College in Pittsburgh demonstrates the advantages of this research method. Such studies are ideal homes for both naturalistic and positivistic data as well as both quantitative and qualitative information."

---. (1991). A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College Composition and Communication. 32. 365-87.

No abstract available.

Cromer, R. (1994) A Case Study of Dissociations Between Language and Cognition. Constraints on Language Acquisition: Studies of Atypical Children . Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 141-153.

Crossley, M. (1983) Case Study in Comparative and International Education: An Approach to Bridging the Theory-Practice Gap. Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference of the Australian Comparative and International Education Society. Hamilton, NZ.

Case study research, as presented here, helps bridge the theory-practice gap in comparative and international research studies of education because it focuses on the practical, day-to-day context rather than on the national arena. The paper asserts that the case study method can be valuable at all levels of research, formation, and verification of theories in education.

Daillak, R., H., and Alkin, M., C. (1982). Qualitative Studies in Context: Reflections on the CSE Studies of Evaluation Use . California: EDRS

The report shows how the Center of the Study of Evaluation (CSE) applied qualitative techniques to a study of evaluation information use in local, Los Angeles schools. It critiques the effectiveness and the limitations of using case study, evaluation, field study, and user interview survey methodologies.

Davey, L. (1991). The Application of Case Study Evaluations. ERIC/TM Digest.

This article examines six types of case studies, the type of evaluation questions that can be answered, the functions served, some design features, and some pitfalls of the method.

Deutch, C. E. (1996). A course in research ethics for graduate students. College Teaching, 44, 2, 56-60.

This article describes a one-credit discussion course in research ethics for graduate students in biology. Case studies are focused on within the four parts of the course: 1) major issues, 2 )practical issues in scholarly work, 3) ownership of research results, and 4) training and personal decisions.

DeVoss, G. (1981). Ethics in Fieldwork Research. RIE 27p. (ERIC)

This article examines four of the ethical problems that can happen when conducting case study research: acquiring permission to do research, knowing when to stop digging, the pitfalls of doing collaborative research, and preserving the integrity of the participants.

Driscoll, A. (1985). Case Study of a Research Intervention: the University of Utah’s Collaborative Approach . San Francisco: Far West Library for Educational Research Development.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Denver, CO, March 1985. Offers information of in-service training, specifically case studies application.

Ellram, L. M. (1996). The Use of the Case Study Method in Logistics Research. Journal of Business Logistics, 17, 2, 93.

This article discusses the increased use of case study in business research, and the lack of understanding of when and how to use case study methodology in business.

Emig, J. (1971) The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders . Urbana: NTCE.

This case study uses observation, tape recordings, writing samples, and school records to show that writing in reflexive and extensive situations caused different lengths of discourse and different clusterings of the components of the writing process.

Feagin, J. R. (1991). A Case For the Case Study . Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

This book discusses the nature, characteristics, and basic methodological issues of the case study as a research method.

Feldman, H., Holland, A., & Keefe, K. (1989) Language Abilities after Left Hemisphere Brain Injury: A Case Study of Twins. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 9, 32-47.

"Describes the language abilities of 2 twin pairs in which 1 twin (the experimental) suffered brain injury to the left cerebral hemisphere around the time of birth and1 twin (the control) did not. One pair of twins was initially assessed at age 23 mo. and the other at about 30 mo.; they were subsequently evaluated in their homes 3 times at about 6-mo intervals."

Fidel, R. (1984). The Case Study Method: A Case Study. Library and Information Science Research, 6.

The article describes the use of case study methodology to systematically develop a model of online searching behavior in which study design is flexible, subject manner determines data gathering and analyses, and procedures adapt to the study's progressive change.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1984). Images, Plans and Prose: The Representation of Meaning in Writing. Written Communication, 1, 120-160.

Explores the ways in which writers actually use different forms of knowing to create prose.

Frey, L. R. (1992). Interpreting Communication Research: A Case Study Approach Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

The book discusses research methodologies in the Communication field. It focuses on how case studies bridge the gap between communication research, theory, and practice.

Gilbert, V. K. (1981). The Case Study as a Research Methodology: Difficulties and Advantages of Integrating the Positivistic, Phenomenological and Grounded Theory Approaches . The Annual Meeting of the Canadian Association for the Study of Educational Administration. (Address) Halifax, NS, Can.

This study on an innovative secondary school in England shows how a "low-profile" participant-observer case study was crucial to the initial observation, the testing of hypotheses, the interpretive approach, and the grounded theory.

Gilgun, J. F. (1994). A Case for Case Studies in Social Work Research. Social Work, 39, 4, 371-381.

This article defines case study research, presents guidelines for evaluation of case studies, and shows the relevance of case studies to social work research. It also looks at issues such as evaluation and interpretations of case studies.

Glennan, S. L., Sharp-Bittner, M. A. & Tullos, D. C. (1991). Augmentative and Alternative Communication Training with a Nonspeaking Adult: Lessons from MH. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7, 240-7.

"A response-guided case study documented changes in a nonspeaking 36-yr-old man's ability to communicate using 3 trained augmentative communication modes. . . . Data were collected in videotaped interaction sessions between the nonspeaking adult and a series of adult speaking."

Graves, D. (1981). An Examination of the Writing Processes of Seven Year Old Children. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 113-134.

Hamel, J. (1993). Case Study Methods . Newbury Park: Sage. .

"In a most economical fashion, Hamel provides a practical guide for producing theoretically sharp and empirically sound sociological case studies. A central idea put forth by Hamel is that case studies must "locate the global in the local" thus making the careful selection of the research site the most critical decision in the analytic process."

Karthigesu, R. (1986, July). Television as a Tool for Nation-Building in the Third World: A Post-Colonial Pattern, Using Malaysia as a Case-Study. International Television Studies Conference. (Address). London, 10-12.

"The extent to which Television Malaysia, as a national mass media organization, has been able to play a role in nation building in the post-colonial period is . . . studied in two parts: how the choice of a model of nation building determines the character of the organization; and how the character of the organization influences the output of the organization."

Kenny, R. (1984). Making the Case for the Case Study. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16, (1), 37-51.

The article looks at how and why the case study is justified as a viable and valuable approach to educational research and program evaluation.

Knirk, F. (1991). Case Materials: Research and Practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 4 (1 ), 73-81.

The article addresses the effectiveness of case studies, subject areas where case studies are commonly used, recent examples of their use, and case study design considerations.

Klos, D. (1976). Students as Case Writers. Teaching of Psychology, 3.2, 63-66.

This article reviews a course in which students gather data for an original case study of another person. The task requires the students to design the study, collect the data, write the narrative, and interpret the findings.

Leftwich, A. (1981). The Politics of Case Study: Problems of Innovation in University Education. Higher Education Review, 13.2, 38-64.

The article discusses the use of case studies as a teaching method. Emphasis is on the instructional materials, interdisciplinarity, and the complex relationships within the university that help or hinder the method.

Mabrito, M. (1991, Oct.). Electronic Mail as a Vehicle for Peer Response: Conversations of High and Low Apprehensive Writers. Written Communication, 509-32.

McCarthy, S., J. (1955). The Influence of Classroom Discourse on Student Texts: The Case of Ella . East Lansing: Institute for Research on Teaching.

A look at how students of color become marginalized within traditional classroom discourse. The essay follows the struggles of one black student: Ella.

Matsuhashi, A., ed. (1987). Writing in Real Time: Modeling Production Processes Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Investigates how writers plan to produce discourse for different purposes to report, to generalize, and to persuade, as well as how writers plan for sentence level units of language. To learn about planning, an observational measure of pause time was used" (ERIC).

Merriam, S. B. (1985). The Case Study in Educational Research: A Review of Selected Literature. Journal of Educational Thought, 19.3, 204-17.

The article examines the characteristics of, philosophical assumptions underlying the case study, the mechanics of conducting a case study, and the concerns about the reliability, validity, and generalizability of the method.

---. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Merry, S. E., & Milner, N. eds. (1993). The Possibility of Popular Justice: A Case Study of Community Mediation in the United States . Ann Arbor: U of Michigan.

". . . this volume presents a case study of one experiment in popular justice, the San Francisco Community Boards. This program has made an explicit claim to create an alternative justice, or new justice, in the midst of a society ordered by state law. The contributors to this volume explore the history and experience of the program and compare it to other versions of popular justice in the United States, Europe, and the Third World."

Merseth, K. K. (1991). The Case for Cases in Teacher Education. RIE. 42p. (ERIC).

This monograph argues that the case method of instruction offers unique potential for revitalizing the field of teacher education.

Michaels, S. (1987). Text and Context: A New Approach to the Study of Classroom Writing. Discourse Processes, 10, 321-346.

"This paper argues for and illustrates an approach to the study of writing that integrates ethnographic analysis of classroom interaction with linguistic analysis of written texts and teacher/student conversational exchanges. The approach is illustrated through a case study of writing in a single sixth grade classroom during a single writing assignment."

Milburn, G. (1995). Deciphering a Code or Unraveling a Riddle: A Case Study in the Application of a Humanistic Metaphor to the Reporting of Social Studies Teaching. Theory and Research in Education, 13.

This citation serves as an example of how case studies document learning procedures in a senior-level economics course.

Milley, J. E. (1979). An Investigation of Case Study as an Approach to Program Evaluation. 19th Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research. (Address). San Diego.

The case study method merged a narrative report focusing on the evaluator as participant-observer with document review, interview, content analysis, attitude questionnaire survey, and sociogram analysis. Milley argues that case study program evaluation has great potential for widespread use.

Minnis, J. R. (1985, Sept.). Ethnography, Case Study, Grounded Theory, and Distance Education Research. Distance Education, 6.2.

This article describes and defines the strengths and weaknesses of ethnography, case study, and grounded theory.

Nunan, D. (1992). Collaborative language learning and teaching . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Included in this series of essays is Peter Sturman’s "Team Teaching: a case study from Japan" and David Nunan’s own "Toward a collaborative approach to curriculum development: a case study."

Nystrand, M., ed. (1982). What Writers Know: The Language, Process, and Structure of Written Discourse . New York: Academic Press.

Owenby, P. H. (1992). Making Case Studies Come Alive. Training, 29, (1), 43-46. (ERIC)

This article provides tips for writing more effective case studies.

---. (1981). Pausing and Planning: The Tempo of Writer Discourse Production. Research in the Teaching of English, 15 (2),113-34.

Perl, S. (1979). The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 317-336.

"Summarizes a study of five unskilled college writers, focusing especially on one of the five, and discusses the findings in light of current pedagogical practice and research design."

Pilcher J. and A. Coffey. eds. (1996). Gender and Qualitative Research . Brookfield: Aldershot, Hants, England.

This book provides a series of essays which look at gender identity research, qualitative research and applications of case study to questions of gendered pedagogy.

Pirie, B. S. (1993). The Case of Morty: A Four Year Study. Gifted Education International, 9 (2), 105-109.

This case study describes a boy from kindergarten through third grade with above average intelligence but difficulty in learning to read, write, and spell.

Popkewitz, T. (1993). Changing Patterns of Power: Social Regulation and Teacher Education Reform. Albany: SUNY Press.

Popkewitz edits this series of essays that address case studies on educational change and the training of teachers. The essays vary in terms of discipline and scope. Also, several authors include case studies of educational practices in countries other than the United States.

---. (1984). The Predrafting Processes of Four High- and Four Low Apprehensive Writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, (1), 45-64.

Rasmussen, P. (1985, March) A Case Study on the Evaluation of Research at the Technical University of Denmark. International Journal of Institutional Management in Higher Education, 9 (1).

This is an example of a case study methodology used to evaluate the chemistry and chemical engineering departments at the University of Denmark.

Roth, K. J. (1986). Curriculum Materials, Teacher Talk, and Student Learning: Case Studies in Fifth-Grade Science Teaching . East Lansing: Institute for Research on Teaching.

Roth offers case studies on elementary teachers, elementary school teaching, science studies and teaching, and verbal learning.

Selfe, C. L. (1985). An Apprehensive Writer Composes. When a Writer Can't Write: Studies in Writer's Block and Other Composing-Process Problems . (pp. 83-95). Ed. Mike Rose. NMY: Guilford.

Smith-Lewis, M., R. and Ford, A. (1987). A User's Perspective on Augmentative Communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3, 12-7.

"During a series of in-depth interviews, a 25-yr-old woman with cerebral palsy who utilized augmentative communication reflected on the effectiveness of the devices designed for her during her school career."

St. Pierre, R., G. (1980, April). Follow Through: A Case Study in Metaevaluation Research . 64th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (Address).

The three approaches to metaevaluation are evaluation of primary evaluations, integrative meta-analysis with combined primary evaluation results, and re-analysis of the raw data from a primary evaluation.

Stahler, T., M. (1996, Feb.) Early Field Experiences: A Model That Worked. ERIC.

"This case study of a field and theory class examines a model designed to provide meaningful field experiences for preservice teachers while remaining consistent with the instructor's beliefs about the role of teacher education in preparing teachers for the classroom."

Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

This book examines case study research in education and case study methodology.

Stiegelbauer, S. (1984) Community, Context, and Co-curriculum: Situational Factors Influencing School Improvements in a Study of High Schools. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Discussion of several case studies: one looking at high school environments, another examining educational innovations.

Stolovitch, H. (1990). Case Study Method. Performance And Instruction, 29, (9), 35-37.

This article describes the case study method as a form of simulation and presents guidelines for their use in professional training situations.

Thaller, E. (1994). Bibliography for the Case Method: Using Case Studies in Teacher Education. RIE. 37 p.

This bibliography presents approximately 450 citations on the use of case studies in teacher education from 1921-1993.

Thrane, T. (1986). On Delimiting the Senses of Near-Synonyms in Historical Semantics: A Case Study of Adjectives of 'Moral Sufficiency' in the Old English Andreas. Linguistics Across Historical and Geographical Boundaries: In Honor of Jacek Fisiak on the Occasion of his Fiftieth Birthday . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

United Nations. (1975). Food and Agriculture Organization. Report on the FAO/UNFPA Seminar on Methodology, Research and Country: Case Studies on Population, Employment and Productivity . Rome: United Nations.

This example case study shows how the methodology can be used in a demographic and psychographic evaluation. At the same time, it discusses the formation and instigation of the case study methodology itself.

Van Vugt, J. P., ed. (1994). Aids Prevention and Services: Community Based Research . Westport: Bergin and Garvey.

"This volume has been five years in the making. In the process, some of the policy applications called for have met with limited success, such as free needle exchange programs in a limited number of American cities, providing condoms to prison inmates, and advertisements that depict same-sex couples. Rather than dating our chapters that deal with such subjects, such policy applications are verifications of the type of research demonstrated here. Furthermore, they indicate the critical need to continue community based research in the various communities threatened by acquired immuno-deficiency syndrome (AIDS) . . . "

Welch, W., ed. (1981, May). Case Study Methodology in Educational Evaluation. Proceedings of the Minnesota Evaluation Conference. Minnesota. (Address).

The four papers in these proceedings provide a comprehensive picture of the rationale, methodology, strengths, and limitations of case studies.

Williams, G. (1987). The Case Method: An Approach to Teaching and Learning in Educational Administration. RIE, 31p.

This paper examines the viability of the case method as a teaching and learning strategy in instructional systems geared toward the training of personnel of the administration of various aspects of educational systems.

Yin, R. K. (1993). Advancing Rigorous Methodologies: A Review of 'Towards Rigor in Reviews of Multivocal Literatures.' Review of Educational Research, 61, (3).

"R. T. Ogawa and B. Malen's article does not meet its own recommended standards for rigorous testing and presentation of its own conclusions. Use of the exploratory case study to analyze multivocal literatures is not supported, and the claim of grounded theory to analyze multivocal literatures may be stronger."

---. (1989). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage Publications Inc.

This book discusses in great detail, the entire design process of the case study, including entire chapters on collecting evidence, analyzing evidence, composing the case study report, and designing single and multiple case studies.

Related Links

Consider the following list of related Web sites for more information on the topic of case study research. Note: although many of the links cover the general category of qualitative research, all have sections that address issues of case studies.

• Sage Publications on Qualitative Methodology: Search here for a comprehensive list of new books being published about "Qualitative Methodology" http://www.sagepub.co.uk/
• The International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education: An on-line journal "to enhance the theory and practice of qualitative research in education." On-line submissions are welcome. http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/tf/09518398.html
• Qualitative Research Resources on the Internet: From syllabi to home pages to bibliographies. All links relate somehow to qualitative research. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/qualres.html

Becker, Bronwyn, Patrick Dawson, Karen Devine, Carla Hannum, Steve Hill, Jon Leydens, Debbie Matuskevich, Carol Traver, & Mike Palmquist. (2005). Case Studies. Writing@CSU . Colorado State University. https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=60

• Ask a Librarian
• Case Study Research
• What is a Case Study?
• Finding a Case Study

Related Guides

• Abstracts - A Guide to Writing by Margarita Velázquez-Mercado Last Updated Aug 20, 2024 946 views this year
• Annotated Bibliography by Clara Volker Last Updated Aug 9, 2024 3157 views this year
• Literature Reviews by Clara Volker Last Updated Oct 25, 2023 7951 views this year
• Qualitative & Quantitative Research by Madison Knupp Last Updated Jul 26, 2024 570 views this year
• The Research Paper Process by Clara Volker Last Updated Jul 17, 2024 3682 views this year
• SAGE Research Methods by Kristen Davis Last Updated Oct 25, 2023 731 views this year

What is a case study?

A case study is a type of research method. In case studies, the unit of analysis is a case . The case typically provides a detailed account of a situation that usually focuses on a conflict or complexity that one might encounter in the workplace.

• Case studies help explain the process by which a unit (a person, department, business, organization, industry, country, etc.) deals with the issue or problem confronting it, and offers possible solutions that can be applied to other units facing similar situations.
• The information presented in case studies is usually qualitative in nature - gathered through methods such as interview, observation, and document collection.
• There are different types of case study, including  intrinsic, instrumental, naturalistic,  and  pragmatic.

This research guide will assist you in finding individual case studies, as well as providing information on designing case studies. If you need assistance locating information, please Ask a Librarian .

• Next: Case Study Research >>
• Last Updated: Nov 2, 2023 2:39 PM
• URL: https://guides.erau.edu/case-studies

Hunt Library

Mori Hosseini Student Union 1 Aerospace Boulevard Daytona Beach, FL 32114

Phone: 386-226-6595 Toll-Free: 800-678-9428

Maps and Parking

• Report a Problem
• Suggest a Purchase

Library Information

• Departments and Staff
• Library Collections
• Library Facilities
• Library Newsletter
• Hunt Library Employment

University Initiatives

• Scholarly Commons
• Data Commons
• University Archives
• Open and Affordable Textbooks

Qualitative Research: Case Studies

• Getting Started
• Focus Groups
• Observation
• Case Studies
• Data Collection
• Cleaning Text
• Analysis Tools
• Institutional Review

Help with case studies

Photo: https://www.professays.com

How To Write a Case Study

How to undertake case study research

From: http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/case_studies/index.htm

What is a case study?

• Attempts to shed light on a phenomena by studying a single case example.
• Focuses on an individual person, an event, a group, or an institution.
• Allows for in-depth examination by prolonged engagement or cultural immersion
• Explores processes and outcomes
• Investigates the context and setting of a situation
• Can involve a number of data gathering methods

Duke Resources

• Philanthropy Central from Sanford School of Public Policy Case Study Database Provides real-life case studies of philanthropic initiatives. There are currently more than 600 case studies linked to in the Database.

Suggested Readings

• McNabb, D. (2010).  Case reseach in public management.  NY: M.E.Sharpe.
• Samuels, D. (2013).  Case studies in comparative politics .  NY: Pearson Education.
• Stark, R. (1995). The  art of case study research, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Yin, R.K. (2009) Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles: Sage.
• << Previous: Observation
• Next: Data Collection >>
• Last Updated: Mar 1, 2024 10:13 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/qualitative-research

Services for...

• Faculty & Instructors
• Graduate Students
• Undergraduate Students
• International Students
• Patrons with Disabilities

• Harmful Language Statement
• Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
• Support the Libraries

Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• < Back to search results
• Case Study Research

Case Study Research

Principles and practices.

• This book is no longer available to purchase from Cambridge Core
• Cited by 602

This Book has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref .

• Google Scholar
• John Gerring , Boston University
• Export citation
• Buy a print copy

Book description

Case Study Research: Principles and Practices aims to provide a general understanding of the case study method as well as specific tools for its successful implementation. These tools can be utilized in all fields where the case study method is prominent, including business, anthropology, communications, economics, education, medicine, political science, social work, and sociology. Topics include the definition of a 'case study,' the strengths and weaknesses of this distinctive method, strategies for choosing cases, an experimental template for understanding research design, and the role of singular observations in case study research. It is argued that a diversity of approaches - experimental, observational, qualitative, quantitative, ethnographic - may be successfully integrated into case study research. This book breaks down traditional boundaries between qualitative and quantitative, experimental and nonexperimental, positivist and interpretivist.

“ Case Study Research is a book with a mission. What John Gerring aims for, and contributes with great success, is a conceptual manifesto and foundational guidelines that demarcate the case study approach as a research methodology.” -David Shulman, Lafayette College, American Anthropologist

“Having read this book, readers will leave with a better understanding of the historic and present complexities within the case study method. Gerring provides us with concrete information about how and when this method is used, how it can be used better, and, despite all the controversy and doubt regarding this choice of method, that it continues to be useful within the social sciences.” -Marybeth C. Stalp, University of Northern Iowa, Contemporary Sociology

“In this book the author provides a general understanding of the case study, as well as the tools and techniques necessary for its successful implementation.” -C.M. O’Brien, International Statistical Review

"John Gerring, an Associate Professor of political science at Boston University, has written a thoughtful monograph on the case study method in social research...The book presents categorizations and typologies of case study types and techniques that are firmly rooted in previous research, yet the organization of the material is quite innovative." -Edward Cohen, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare

"[...]provocative new methodological treatise[...]This book does more than any in recent memory to bring case studies out of the shadows and into their proper, proudly central place in political science." -Dan Slater, University of Chicago, Perspectives on Politics

• Aa Reduce text
• Aa Enlarge text

Refine List

Actions for selected content:.

• View selected items
• Save to my bookmarks
• Export citations
• Download PDF (zip)
• Save to Kindle
• Save to Dropbox
• Save to Google Drive

Save content to

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to .

To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Frontmatter pp i-vi

Contents pp vii-viii, acknowledgments pp ix-x, case study research pp xi-xii.

• Principles and Practices

1 - The Conundrum of the Case Study pp 1-14

Part i - thinking about case studies pp 15-16, 2 - what is a case study pp 17-36.

• The Problem of Definition

3 - What Is a Case Study Good For? pp 37-64

• Case Study versus Large-N Cross-Case Analysis

PART II - DOING CASE STUDIES pp 65-67

4 - preliminaries pp 68-85, 5 - techniques for choosing cases pp 86-150.

• By Jason Seawright

6 - Internal Validity pp 151-171

• An Experimental Template
• By Rose McDermott

7 - Internal Validity: Process Tracing pp 172-186

• By Craig Thomas

Epilogue pp 187-210

• Single-Outcome Studies

Glossary pp 211-218

References pp 219-256, name index pp 257-262, subject index pp 263-265, altmetric attention score, full text views.

Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views for chapters in this book.

Book summary page views

Book summary views reflect the number of visits to the book and chapter landing pages.

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

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
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Policy and Global Affairs; Committee on Science, Engineering, Medicine, and Public Policy; Committee on Responsible Science. Fostering Integrity in Research. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2017 Apr 11.

Fostering Integrity in Research.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

Appendix D Detailed Case Histories

The following five detailed case histories of specific cases of actual and alleged research misconduct are included in an appendix to raise key issues and impart lessons that underlie the committee's findings and recommendations without breaking up the flow of the report. In several cases, including the translational omics case at Duke University and the Goodwin case at the University of Wisconsin, the committee heard directly from some of those involved.

The case histories differ in length in order to devote sufficient explanation to the issues involved in each case. For example, the translational omics case at Duke University unfolded over several years and involved multiple complex issues, making a lengthier discussion necessary. Issues covered in the cases include individual and institutional conflicts of interest, data falsification and fabrication, whistleblower retaliation and protection, insufficient or abusive mentoring, ghostwriting, authorship roles, institutional and administrator responsibilities, journal responsibilities, implementation of the federal government's research misconduct policy, and the costs and impacts of research misconduct.

Some cases mentioned in the report are not included in the appendix because the shorter descriptions already sufficed to illustrate the issues being described.

• THE WAKEFIELD MMR-AUTISM CASE

Synopsis and Rationale for Inclusion: An undisclosed conflict of interest between a principal investigator and the entity funding their research can have far-reaching effects beyond the scope of the research study. In the MMR-autism case, Andrew Wakefield had undisclosed monetary conflicts of interest and was found to have violated human subjects protection rules in research underlying an article published in the Lancet ( UK GMC, 2010 ; Triggle, 2010 ). 1 In the opinion of the British Medical Journal, Wakefield also falsified data ( Godlee et al., 2011 ). A formal retraction did not occur for over a decade, allowing ample time for the purported findings to become an important support for the anti-vaccine movement. This case not only confronts the issue of conflicts of interest but also weaknesses in institutional research governance, coauthor responsibility, and journal responsibility.

In 1998, Andrew Wakefield published a paper in The Lancet claiming that he had found a link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) 3-in-1 vaccine and regressive autism, as well as a bowel disorder, using a sample of 12 children. Within a year, an article with a sample of 498 children rebutted Wakefield's findings, followed by additional rebuttal articles for several years thereafter ( Taylor et al., 1999 ). However, Wakefield's article resonated with anti-vaccine movements in several countries, especially in the United Kingdom and United States, prompting some parents to refrain from vaccinating their children for fear of a connection to autism, contributing to decreased vaccination rates in the United States and United Kingdom and compromising the near success of eradicating these diseases from Western countries.

Six years after the 1998 article was published, 10 of the 12 coauthors retracted the paper's interpretation that the results suggested a possible causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism ( Murch et al., 2004 ). In 2010, based on the UK General Medical Council's (GMC) Fitness to Practice Panel findings, The Lancet retracted the full article ( Lancet Editors, 2010 ). Both of these retractions were prompted by the investigation by a British journalist, Brian Deer, initially published in the Sunday Times in early 2004. Deer exposed that Wakefield had undisclosed financial interest in the research results, reporting that Wakefield had negotiated a contract with a lawyer who hired him to provide evidence against the MMR vaccine to help support a lawsuit against the MMR manufacturing company ( Deer, 2011a ). Deer reported that Wakefield profited approximately $750,000 USD from the partnership ( Deer, 2011a ). In addition, Deer stated that Wakefield applied for a patent on his own measles vaccine, from which he was positioned to personally profit ( Deer, 2011a ). In addition, Deer reported that throughout the study, “Wakefield had repeatedly changed, misreported and misrepresented diagnoses, histories and descriptions of the children, which made it appear that the syndrome had been discovered” ( Deer, 2011a ). Lastly, Deer reported that the study sample was selectively recruited and not consecutively chosen as Wakefield had reported ( Deer, 2011a ; Wakefield et al., 1998 , retracted). Deer then broadcast his findings on a UK television program, excerpts of which were later broadcast in the United States during an NBC Dateline investigation on Wakefield.

In addition to Deer's findings, the GMC found that Wakefield had performed unnecessary invasive tests on children that were “against their best interests,” was not qualified to perform the tests, did not have the necessary ethics approval to conduct his study, and unethically gathered blood samples by paying children at his son's birthday party for samples ( Triggle, 2010 ; UK GMC, 2010 ). He was found guilty of more than 30 charges of serious professional misconduct and removed from the UK's medical register ( Triggle, 2010 ; UK GMC, 2010 ).

Also in 2004 and soon after Deer's investigation, The Lancet launched an investigation of the paper. Other than undisclosed parallel funding and ongoing litigation, the Lancet reported that their editors did not find evidence of intentional deception or data falsification and so did not retract the paper ( Eggertson, 2010 ). The article remained in the publication until the GMC's findings and subsequent actions in 2010, at which point The Lancet editors agreed “several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation” and fully retracted the paper ( Lancet Editors, 2010 ). The journal's editor, Richard Horton, said that “he did not have the evidence to [retract the paper] before the end of the GMC investigation” ( Boseley, 2010 ).

In 2011, Brian Deer produced additional investigative reporting in support of his allegation that Wakefield falsified data, which was published by the British Medical Journal ( Deer, 2011b ). Deer's work was endorsed by the editors of BMJ ( Godlee et al., 2011 ).

Wakefield denies ever having committed research misconduct; in a press complaint, Wakefield insisted “he never claimed that the children had regressive autism, nor that they were previously normal . . . never misreported or changed any findings in the study, never patented a measles vaccine . . . and he never received huge payments from the lawyer” ( Deer, 2011b ). Furthermore, he claims to be a victim of conspiracy via a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) cover-up, alleging the “CDC has known for years about an association between the MMR vaccine and autism” ( Ziv, 2015 ). Wakefield's recent basis of this claim is a 2014 article by Brian Hooker published in Translational Neurodegeneration in which Hooker reevaluates data collected by the CDC and suggests African American boys who received the MMR vaccine before 24 months and after 36 months of age showed higher risks for autism ( Hooker, 2014 , retracted). However, the Hooker paper was later retracted because of conflicts of interest and questionable research methods ( Translational Neurodegeneration Editor and Publisher, 2014 ).

Following the 2004 investigation, Wakefield moved to the United States, where he is not licensed, but continues to defend the MMR-autism connection. He attempted to sue Deer and the BMJ in 2010 for defamation, but the lawsuit was dismissed ( Lindell, 2014 ). Wakefield works out of Austin, Texas, as an anti-vaccine activist, where he has received support from parents of children with autism ( Deer, 2014 ). He directed the documentary Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe , which was to have been shown at the 2016 Tribeca Film Festival, but was withdrawn ( Goodman, 2016 ).

In March 2011, the University College London (UCL), which took over the Royal Free Hospital where Wakefield worked at the time, announced intentions to conduct an institutional investigation on Wakefield ( Reich, 2011 ). However, over 1 year later, UCL had not completed the investigation and explained that “given the passage of time, the fact that the majority of the main figures involved no longer work for UCL, and the fact that UCL lacks any legal powers of compulsion,” an investigation would not be a worthwhile endeavor for the university ( UCL, 2012 ). Instead, UCL published a paper, MMR and the Development of a Research Governance Framework in UCL , detailing revisions made to the university's research governance framework in response to the shortcomings raised by the Wakefield case.

Synopsis and Rationale for Inclusion: The Paxil case illustrates issues related to biomedical ghostwriting and unacknowledged conflicts of interest. In this practice, the listed authors of an article reporting on a clinical study may consist solely of prominent academicians, yet unacknowledged industry-supported researchers may have undertaken key tasks associated with the research, including aspects of concept design, subject enrollment, monitoring, data collection and interpretation, and writing the article. In extreme cases, the listed authors may not be able to confirm the integrity of the data or reported results. There have also been several notable cases over the past several decades in which suppression of negative findings or data falsification have been alleged or confirmed in industry-supported studies. Biomedical ghostwriting has been condemned by numerous scientific organizations worldwide.

Ghostwriting, “the practice whereby individuals make significant contributions to writing a manuscript but are not named as authors,” has been condemned as an “example of fraud” and “a disturbing violation of academic integrity standards, which form the basis of scientific reliability” ( Bosch and Ross, 2012 ; Stern and Lemmens, 2011 ). The practice is not currently equated with plagiarism and so is not within the Office of Research Integrity's (ORI) power to regulate. Bosch and Ross (2012) suggest that ORI include ghostwriting in its definition of research misconduct so that it can be investigated and offenders can be punished under the federal research misconduct policy.

ICMJE (2015) established criteria against which to determine appropriate assignment of biomedical authorship and recommends that those who do not meet all of the criteria only be listed in the acknowledgments sections. COPE (2011) also recommends that specific rules be implemented to prevent ghostwriting, which is explicitly defined as misconduct in their guidelines.

If data are falsified or the reported results are misleading in a clinical study and the listed authors are not able to vouch for the integrity of the data or results, using the study as a basis for treating patients may present serious health and safety risks. If fabricated or falsified results are alleged for privately funded research, institutions are not required to report the investigation results to federal agencies under the federal research misconduct policy.

One example that illustrates these two issues is a 2001 paper overstating the benefits and understating the risks of the Glaxo SmithKline (GSK) drug Paxil in off-label treatment of children ( Basken, 2012 ). Four GSK employees acted as whistleblowers, revealing “improper practices” to the U.S. government, including GSK enticing doctors with vacations and knowingly publishing misreported data ( Thomas and Schmidt, 2012 ). Although the lead authors listed on the paper were respected academics in the field, as part of Glaxo's $3 billion settlement with the federal government, the company admitted that it had hired authors who were not listed as such and that the resulting publication had misrepresented the results.

Brown University, employer of the lead author, Martin B. Keller, launched an internal investigation, the results of which were not made public ( Basken, 2012 ). No actions were taken against Keller, or the other 21 authors listed on the paper. Keller and at least five of the other authors continue to receive federal funding from the National Institutes of Health. The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , which published the article, has not yet retracted it.

A recent reanalysis of Keller et al.'s 2001 study found no significant differences in efficacy between Paxil and the placebo in treating adolescents with major depression, but did find adverse emotional effects leading to increased suicidal thoughts and attempts for adolescents being treated with Paxil ( Le Noury et al., 2015 ).

In 2015, Keller and 8 of the 22 authors of the original study wrote a letter to the blog Retraction Watch rebutting many points of Le Noury et al.'s 2015 reanalysis of the study; Keller claimed that data used in the reanalysis were not available during the time of the original study. He also firmly asserted that none of the paper was ghostwritten. Keller concluded that describing the original “trial as ‘misreported’ is pejorative and wrong,” specifically from a retrospective point of view ( Keller et al., 2015 ).

At this point, it appears that key issues related to this episode may never be resolved. In addition to the Paxil case, there have been several other cases of possible biomedical ghost writing that led to legal consequences for both medical companies and ghostwriters, indicating a heightened level of responsibility on the part of authors (see Chapter 7 ).

The Food and Drug Administration recently released draft guidance on publications reporting use of approved products for off-label indications: Guidance for Industry Distributing Scientific and Medical Publications on Risk Information for Approved Prescription Drugs and Biological Products—Recommended Practices . The guidelines state that scientific journals should not publish articles “written, edited, excerpted, or published specifically for, or at the request of, a drug or device manufacturer,” nor “be edited or significantly influenced by a drug or device manufacturer or any individuals having a financial relationship with the manufacturer” ( FDA, 2014 ). In addition, articles including information on pharmaceuticals should include a statement disclosing the manufacturer's interest in the drug and any financial interest between authors and the manufacturer ( FDA, 2014 ). Final guidance is expected, but has not yet been released.

• THE GOODWIN CASE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

Synopsis and Rationale for Inclusion: Graduate students may need support and protection from repercussions that may arise as a result of research misconduct committed by their mentor. Students stand to lose years of work if their mentor is found guilty of research misconduct, and may need to find another research group to continue their work, restart their graduate research from the beginning, or leave academia completely. With this in mind, graduate students of Elizabeth Goodwin, formerly a geneticist at the University of Wisconsin, found that data had been fabricated in one of Goodwin's proposals and reported her to the university. This case demonstrates difficult choices that may confront whistleblowers, especially those in vulnerable positions such as graduate students or postdoctoral fellows, the need for institutions to support young researchers put into difficult situations through no fault of their own, and the need for better mentoring in some laboratory and institutional environments.

In fall 2005, graduate students working in the laboratory of University of Wisconsin geneticist Elizabeth Goodwin were confronted with evidence that their advisor had falsified data contained in a proposal to the National Institutes of Health ( Couzin, 2006 ). Specifically, one experiment described in the proposal had not actually been performed, and figures appeared to have been manipulated. Over a period of several months, the students sought explanations from Goodwin, with which they were ultimately unsatisfied, and discussed among themselves what they should do ( Allen, 2012 ). Recognizing that a decision to bring their concerns to university administrators would essentially shut down Goodwin's lab and have a severe negative impact on their own graduate careers, they decided that any such decision would need to be made unanimously.

Ultimately, the students decided to turn Goodwin in, which led to a university investigation finding that data in several grant applications had been falsified, a ruling confirmed by the Office of Research Integrity ( ORI, 2010 ). Goodwin also pled guilty to making false statements on government documents, and was sentenced to 2 years' probation, fined $500, and was ordered to pay $100,000 in restitution ( Winter, 2010 ). Several papers that Goodwin had coauthored were also investigated, but falsification was not found.

As they anticipated, the graduate students did suffer negative impacts from the case ( Allen, 2012 ). One was able to continue work in another lab, and one was able to start a new project in a different lab at Wisconsin. One left Wisconsin to enter the PhD program at another institution, essentially starting over after 4 years. The remaining three students decided to embark on careers outside of academic research.

The case highlights several key issues. The first is the importance of whistleblowers to the system of ensuring research integrity. Although failure to replicate results, statistical analysis, and other mechanisms may be increasingly important in uncovering research misconduct, postdoctoral fellows and graduate students are responsible for reporting a significant percentage (up to half) of cases involving nonclinical research that come to ORI ( Couzin, 2006 ). And these whistleblowers often suffer negative consequences, primarily severe damage to their careers, even when the institution takes appropriate steps to protect them from retaliation.

In addition, former students report that in the years immediately preceding Goodwin's falsified applications, problems were apparent in the lab. Several students were not making progress on their research, with no publications to show for years of work, but were advised to continue on these “dead projects” ( Allen, 2012 ). Goodwin had also reportedly been encouraging students to overinterpret data and conceal data that conflicted with desired results ( Couzin, 2006 ). Such ineffective mentoring and promotion of detrimental research practices create a poor environment for research integrity.

• THE HWANG STEM CELL CASE AND THE UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: COAUTHOR RESPONSIBILITIES AND INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES

Synopsis and Rationale for Inclusion: The Hwang case raises several important research integrity issues, including data fabrication and falsification, abuse of mentorship status, whistleblower retaliation, and endangering the health of trial participants. The University of Pittsburgh's role in this case highlights the need for institutional oversight and defined standards for authorship roles. A second, more recent case at the University of Pittsburgh further demonstrates the need for oversight and institutional focus on addressing all cases of research misconduct.

One highly publicized case that raises several important research integrity issues is that of Hwang Woo-suk, whose purportedly groundbreaking stem cell research turned out to be based on fabricated experiments ( Holden, 2006 ). In his first article published in Science (in 2004), Hwang claimed to have “generated embryonic stem cells from an adult human cell,” a process often referred to as therapeutic cloning, so that cells could be transplanted “without immune rejection to treat degenerative disorders” ( Wade, 2006 ; Hwang et al., 2004 , retracted). University of Pittsburgh stem cell researcher Gerald Schatten began corresponding with Dr. Hwang in late 2003, offering editorial input and support to Hwang's 2004 paper that had earlier been rejected by Science . Following the acceptance of the paper, Schatten and Hwang began discussing a follow-up paper in which Hwang claimed his laboratory team had “created human embryonic stem cells genetically matched to specific patients” ( Sang-Hun, 2009 ). According to Schatten, he and Hwang drafted and edited the article together; Schatten was responsible for much of the writing and was a prominent public promoter of the findings ( University of Pittsburgh, 2006 ). The article was published in Science in 2005 naming Schatten as a senior author, a role he later denied, claiming to have been no more than a coauthor.

In June 2005, immediately following the second article's published release and Hwang's announcement of a clinical trial, Young-Joon Ryu, a former researcher in Hwang's laboratory aware of the fabricated data, worried for the safety of trial participants. Ryu e-mailed Korean television network, Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) recommending an investigation ( Cyranoski, 2014b ). Unfortunately, Ryu endured negative effects for his role as a whistleblower. Ryu's identity was leaked early on in the MBC investigation and he received negative backlash from Hwang's ardent supporters that led to Ryu's resignation from his position at a hospital and to a period of unemployment.

As the MBC investigation was under way, ethical concerns with Hwang's research methods were being raised. Sun Il Roh, a coauthor of the 2005 paper and fertility specialist at a hospital in Seoul, disclosed that 20 eggs he had provided to Hwang for the study had been paid for (a violation of human subjects protections), but that Hwang was unaware of this ( Cyranoski and Check, 2005a ). Amongst this and other signs that accepted ethical procedures were not being followed, including that a young, female graduate student in Hwang's laboratory had donated eggs to the experiment (another violation of human subjects standards), Schatten asked that his name be removed from the 2005 publication and ceased working with Hwang ( Cyranoski and Check, 2005b ). Four days after Roh came forward and after a year of denials, Hwang admitted that “his stem-cell research used eggs from paid donors and junior members of his team” ( Cyranoski and Check, 2005a ). Days later, Hwang revealed to Science that of the 11 photos used in the 2005 article, several were duplicates, “even though each was meant to show a different human cell colony” ( Wade, 2005 ). Hwang claimed that this was a mistake and that it occurred only when Science requested higher-resolution photos, not in the original submission. Roh was interviewed in the MBC television broadcast on Hwang and revealed that “Hwang had told him ‘there are no cloned embryonic stem cells’” ( Cyranoski, 2005 ).

After its formal investigation in 2005, a Seoul National University committee determined that both of Hwang's articles were based on fabricated data ( SNU, 2006 ). Numerous accusations ensued with Hwang admitting to “ordering subordinates to fabricate data,” but also blaming a coauthor who “admitted to switching stem cells without Hwang's knowledge” ( Cyranoski, 2014c ). Preceding the SNU investigation's conclusion, Schatten and Hwang had together requested that the paper be retracted from Science . Based on the investigation findings, Donald Kennedy, Science editor-in-chief, retracted both the 2004 and 2005 papers, reporting that “seven of the 15 authors of Hwang et al., 2004 have agreed to retract their paper” and “all of the authors of Hwang et al., 2005 have agreed to retract their paper” ( Kennedy, 2006 ). Following the retractions, Korea's National Bioethics Committee (created in response to ethical questions concerning Hwang's early research) found that Hwang had “forced junior members of his lab to donate eggs, and that he used more than 2,221 eggs in his research” ( Nature , 2005 ). Hwang had only reported using approximately 400 eggs. Throughout the entire investigation, Hwang maintained that his laboratory did “create stem cells matched to individual patients,” but acknowledged that mistakes were made throughout the research process. His achievement of the first cloned dog, Snuppy, was never discredited ( Nature , 2005 ).

Hwang was indicted on three charges, “embezzling KRW2.8 billion [(US$2.4 million)], committing fraud by knowingly using fabricated data to apply for research funds, and violating a bioethics law that outlaws the purchase of eggs for research” ( Nature , 2005 ). In 2009, Hwang was convicted on two of the three charges, violating the bioethics law and embezzling government funds. The fraud charge was dropped because the “companies involved gave the money knowing that they would not benefit from the donation” ( Cyranoski, 2014a ). Hwang was sentenced to a 2-year suspended prison sentence.

Today, with private funding, Hwang runs the Sooam Biotech Research Foundation that he opened in July 2006. The laboratory clones animals with the goals of “producing drugs, curing diabetes and Alzheimer's disease, providing transplantable organs, saving endangered species and relieving grief-stricken pet owners” ( Cyranoski, 2014a ). Since opening Sooam, Hwang has been published in peer-reviewed journals and has been successful in obtaining a Canadian patent on a cloned cell line (NT-1), which was found to be fraudulent in Hwang's 2004 Science article. While Hwang attempts to make a comeback, he has twice been denied approval for therapeutic cloning of human embryos by the Korean health ministry and, for now, continues to clone animals.

While a subsequent investigation by a University of Pittsburgh panel found that Gerald Schatten had not been involved with the fabrication, the incident raised questions about whether Schatten's contributions to the paper merited authorship in the first place. To what extent should coauthors, honorary or otherwise, be held responsible for the fabricated results of their collaborators? Schatten argued over the definition of the term write , as he did not generate the data on which the text was based, but the panel found this and disagreements over the definition of senior author to be dishonest attempts to relieve himself of responsibility ( University of Pittsburgh, 2006 ). The panel found Schatten's authorship role to be reasonable given that he wrote each draft of the paper. Schatten was also named coauthor on Hwang's 2005 Snuppy paper; however, Schatten reported to the panel that his “major contribution to the paper” was to suggest using a professional photographer to present Snuppy ( University of Pittsburgh, 2006 ). The panel did not doubt this claim, but found it “less clear that this contribution fully justified co-authorship” ( University of Pittsburgh, 2006 ). At his own request, Schatten was not acknowledged in Hwang's 2004 paper. Among questions of the appropriateness of authorship, also ethically problematic was Schatten's acceptance of approximately $40,000 in honoraria and research proposals to Hwang's laboratory valued at more than $200,000 for a 4-month period with implications that the grant would be continued annually ( University of Pittsburgh, 2006 ).

The University of Pittsburgh panel's report stated that Schatten “did not exercise a sufficiently critical perspective as a scientist,” but because he likely did not “intentionally falsify or fabricate experimental data, and there is no evidence that he was aware of the misconduct,” he was found guilty of “research misbehavior” rather than “research misconduct” ( University of Pittsburgh, 2006 ). “Research misbehavior” was not used or defined in the University of Pittsburgh research misconduct policy in effect at the time. The panel did not recommend any specific disciplinary action against him. Chris Pascal, director of the Office of Research Integrity supported the decision, stating “universities have a right to add refinements to categories of malfeasance” ( Holden, 2006 ). The term research impropriety is contained in the University of Pittsburgh research misconduct policy adopted in 2008 ( University of Pittsburgh, 2008 ).

• THE TRANSLATIONAL OMICS CASE AT DUKE

Synopsis and Rationale for Inclusion: The case of Duke University researchers Joseph Nevins and Anil Potti, which stretched out over several years and attracted national media attention, illustrates shortcomings and deficiencies in current approaches to research integrity on the part of researchers, research institutions, government agencies and journals ( CBS News, 2012 ). Potti's fabricated results endangered trial participants and may have contributed to public mistrust in scientific research. Institutionally, supervisors at the laboratory level and senior administrators did not respond effectively for several years despite multiple warning signs. This case also raises questions about the responsibility of a journal to respond appropriately if numerous inquiries are made on the same original article. Several parties' unresponsiveness to questions on Potti's work may have delayed the findings of research misconduct.

Omics is the study of molecules in cells, such as DNA sequences (genomics) and proteins (proteomics). Translational omics research seeks to apply this new knowledge to the creation of diagnostic tests that better detect disease and determine individualized treatment. Translational omics involves several significant challenges. Research “generates complex high-dimensional data” and resulting diagnostics are characterized by “difficulty in defining the biological rationale . . . based on multiple individual biomarkers” ( IOM, 2012 ). In addition, diagnostic tests differ from drugs and other medical technologies regarding regulatory oversight; tests may be reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration, or be validated in a CLIA-certified laboratory (Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act).

Beginning in 2006, a series of papers appearing in major journals such as Nature Medicine and the New England Journal of Medicine purported to show that the gene activity in a patient's tumor cells could be used to determine which chemotherapy drugs would be most effective for that patient. This capability would enable significant advances in cancer treatment. Since individual reactions to these drugs are heterogeneous, the drugs that are effective for one person may not be effective for another. The lead author of the papers was cancer researcher Anil Potti, who worked at Duke University in the lab of Joseph Nevins.

Soon after the first papers were published, Keith Baggerly, Kevin Coombes, and Jing Wang, bioinformaticians at the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center of the University of Texas, began working to replicate the results. They immediately encountered difficulties using the data made publicly available with the paper, and began communicating with Potti and Nevins. Data provided by the Duke team to Baggerly, Coombes, and Wang contained numerous anomalies and obvious errors, making it impossible to replicate or verify the results. A correspondence by the M. D. Anderson researchers submitted to Nature Medicine in 2007 raising these issues was quickly rebutted by Potti and Nevins ( Coombes et al., 2007 ; Potti and Nevins, 2007 ). However, when Baggerly, Coombes, and Wang examined additional information provided by the Duke team they found that there were still significant problems. For example, in some cases, sensitive and resistant labels for cell lines were reversed, which would lead to patients being treated with the least effective chemotherapy drug if the tests were used to direct treatment, rather than the most effective.

Over the next several years, in response to interest expressed by M. D. Anderson clinicians in utilizing the advances that continued to be reported by Potti and Nevins, Baggerly and Coombes worked with the data. In several cases where they discovered clearly incorrect results, they submitted correspondence to journals such as Lancet Oncology , Journal of Clinical Oncology , and Nature Medicine , but these were rejected without explanation ( Baggerly, 2010 , 2012 ).

In 2007, at the same time questions were being raised about the data underlying the Nevins-Potti research, Duke University and Duke University Medical Center investigators not associated with Nevins or Potti launched three clinical trials based on the results, and an additional trial was launched at Moffitt Cancer Center ( IOM, 2012 ). Duke also applied for patents, and several companies were working to commercialize the research, including one in which Potti served as a director and secretary ( Reich, 2010b ; Tracer, 2010 ). Learning about the trials in June 2009, Baggerly and Coombes prepared a critical analysis of the Duke work, which was published in the Annals of Applied Statistics after it had been rejected by a biomedical journal ( Baggerly and Coombes, 2009 ).

In January 2015, the Cancer Letter , a specialist newsletter, reported that Bradford Perez, a third-year medical student who was working with Potti in the Nevins lab, became very concerned about the methodology and reliability of the research ( Goldberg, 2015 ). He shared these concerns in a detailed memo with Potti, Nevins, and several Duke administrators in the spring of 2008 ( Goldberg, 2015 ). In addition to providing specifics about a number of concerning factors, he asked that his name be removed from four papers based on the work he had contributed to, including a paper submitted to the Journal of Clinical Oncology , and left the Nevins-Potti laboratory ( Perez, 2008 ). Rather than catalyzing any independent assessment of the serious concerns raised by Perez about the quality of the research, Duke administrators referred him back to Nevins with no apparent follow-up by any institutional official. Nevins and Potti committed to revalidate all of their work, but it appears that this did not happen. Perez left the Nevins lab knowing he would repeat a year of his medical education, in his words, “to gain a more meaningful research experience” ( Perez, 2008 ).

As noted in a 2012 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report discussed further below, Duke “did not institute extra oversight or launch formal investigations of the three trials during the first 3 years after the original publications triggered widely known controversy about the scientific claims and after concerns started to develop about the possible premature early initiation of clinical trials” ( IOM, 2012 ). Not only did Duke's administration fail to act decisively on Perez's suspicions, but an administrator who counseled Perez on the matter did not even inform the IOM committee that Perez had come forward years earlier ( Goldberg, 2015 ; IOM, 2012 ). In response to the 2015 revelations by the Cancer Letter , Duke Medicine officials did not answer specific questions, but did state that “there are many aspects of this situation that would have been handled differently had there been more complete information at the time decisions were made” ( Goldberg, 2015 ).

National Cancer Institute (NCI) researcher Lisa McShane had also been unsuccessful in attempts to replicate the work ( Economist , 2013 ). In the fall of 2009, NCI expressed concern about the clinical trials at Duke as well as the parallel trial at Moffitt. The trials were suspended, and Duke's Institutional Review Board formed an external review panel to evaluate the concerns. The Duke trials were restarted in early 2010 after the review panel concluded that the approaches used in the trials were “viable and likely to succeed” ( IOM, 2012 ).

During the first half of 2010, NCI continued to raise questions about the research. Through a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by the Cancer Letter , it was revealed that the external review panel was not provided with several critical pieces of information, including a detailed description of the statistical methods used in the original research, and a new critique from Baggerly and Coombes based on analysis of updated data posted by Potti and Nevins ( Baggerly, 2010 ; Duke University, 2009 ). About that material, the 2012 IOM report notes that it “was never forwarded to the external statistical reviewers because of the university leadership's concerns that it might ‘bias’ the committee's review” ( IOM, 2012 ).

Several developments in July 2010 brought matters to a head. It was reported that Potti's claim on his resume that he had been a Rhodes Scholar was exaggerated, and this was confirmed by the University of Oxford ( Goldberg, 2010 ; Singer, 2010 ). Also, several dozen prominent biostatisticians wrote to NCI director Harold Varmus to request that the clinical trials based on the Duke research be suspended until the science could be publicly clarified ( Barón et.al., 2010 ; Singer, 2010 ). Duke suspended the trials and suspended Anil Potti's employment in response. The trials were ultimately terminated and Potti left Duke. Starting in the fall of 2010, a number of the papers reporting the Duke results have been retracted.

Over the time since the trials were suspended, there have been several significant developments. NCI asked the Institute of Medicine to develop principles for evaluating omics-based tests, and IOM released its report in 2012 ( IOM, 2012 ). Drawing on lessons from the Duke case and informed by the development of other omics-based tests, the IOM report lays out a recommended development and evaluation process for these tests, and makes specific implementation recommendations to researchers, institutions, agencies, and journals ( IOM, 2012 ).

Duke University has also taken steps to respond ( Califf, 2012 ). Its Translational Medicine Quality Framework emphasizes new science and management approaches to ensure data provenance and integrity, the incorporation of adequate quantitative expertise, explicit management accountability in the institution beyond the individual lab for research affecting patient care, and enhanced conflict-of-interest reviews.

In 2015, ORI concluded that Potti had “engaged in research misconduct by including false research data,” citing specific examples of Potti's data that had been reversed, switched, or changed in a number of (now retracted) articles and other submissions ( ORI, 2015 ). While Potti did not “admit nor deny ORI's findings of research misconduct,” he has expressed that he has no intention of applying for PHS (Public Health Service)–funded research, but agreed that if he is engaged with any PHS-funded research in the future, his research will be supervised for 5 years ( ORI, 2015 ).

In this case, just about all the scientific checks and balances intended to uncover incorrect or fabricated research and protect human subjects failed over the course of several years. A summary of these failings illustrates some of the U.S. research enterprise's key vulnerabilities regarding integrity. Effective steps on the part of Duke to address the problems with Potti's work and investigate possible misconduct were delayed for years, and were finally triggered only by the disclosure of Potti's resume falsification. Those pointing out these problems were appropriately cautious about making formal allegations of misconduct, since there was a possibility that the problems were due to error or extreme sloppiness rather than falsification. Another contributing factor was the willingness of Joseph Nevins, a highly prestigious researcher, to vouch for the work and advocate for Potti with university administrators and others.

Individual Researchers

Anil Potti's misbehavior is at the center of the case. Prior to ORI's conclusion of research misconduct, Joseph Nevins and Robert Califf had both said that it is highly likely that Potti intentionally fabricated or falsified data ( CBS News, 2012 ). In addition, Baggerly, Coombes, and Wang had documented many instances of sloppy or careless data analysis, and Perez documented use of unreliable predictors and omission of data not showing desired results. The negative impact of such sloppy and careless practices on the ability to replicate results and ultimately on patient care might be similar to the impact of fabrication or falsification.

In addition to problems with data and analysis, the IOM committee described a number of poor practices related to the clinical trials for the tests, including trials being undertaken simultaneously with preliminary studies ( IOM, 2012 ).

Potti's collaborators also share responsibility. For example, despite being principal investigator of the lab where the research was undertaken, as well as Potti's mentor and coauthor, Joseph Nevins did not thoroughly check the original data files until after it was revealed that Potti had exaggerated his credentials in July 2010, more than 3 years after the data issues were originally raised ( CBS News, 2012 ). Moreover, we now know from a deposition cited in court documents that Nevins “pleaded with Perez not to send a letter about his concerns to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which was supporting him, because it would trigger an investigation at Duke” ( Kaiser, 2015 ). Indeed, Duke administrators testified to the IOM that none of Potti's coauthors (a total of 162 for 40 papers) raised any questions or concerns about the papers or tests until they were contacted by Duke at the start of the process of determining which papers should be retracted ( IOM, 2012 ). Bradford Perez, the medical student described above, did raise concerns and removed his name from the papers that he contributed to, so his documented concerns were apparently not considered when that statement was made. Nevins remained on faculty as a department chair until his retirement in 2013, the year after the IOM report was released.

Institutional Policies and Procedures

In addition to the failures of individual researchers, lessons can be drawn from the responses by Duke as an institution during the controversy. Institutional shortcomings in policies and procedures, structure, systems, and oversight contributed to delays in recognizing that the science underlying the Nevins-Potti research was unsound. First, Duke's Institute for Genomic Science and Policy and its component Center for Applied Genomics and Technology, where Nevins and Potti worked, instituted its own system for undertaking clinical trials, separate from the extensive existing infrastructure of the Duke Cancer Center ( IOM, 2012 ). This parallel pathway lacked the normal checks and balances as well as clear lines of authority and oversight.

In addition, systems for managing conflicts of interest at the individual and institutional levels were inadequate ( IOM, 2012 ). For example, the IOM committee found evidence that researchers involved with undertaking the clinical trials had unreported financial or professional conflicts of interest. Some investigators held patents on one or more of the tests, or had links with one of the companies founded to market the tests. The institution itself, through its licensing relationships, had a financial interest in the success of the tests, as well as a reputational interest in having generated such an important new technology. It is of note that the institution had created a set of video and print materials featuring the research ( CBS News, 2012 ; Singer, 2010 ).

As noted in the 2012 IOM report, as a “responsible party” for assuring the integrity of the science conducted under their auspices, universities have particularly important responsibilities. These include responsibility for the hiring and promotion of the faculty members conducting research, the establishment and maintenance of oversight structures, and responsibilities for properly responding to and resolving questions about the validity of research or allegations of misconduct when they arise. It also includes the responsibility for ensuring the existence of an organizational culture and climate that sets expectations for research integrity that “are transmitted by the institution and modeled by its leadership. Institutional culture starts with the dean, senior leaders, and members of their team stating how research is to be conducted, with integrity and transparency, and with clarity that shortcuts will not be tolerated and that dishonesty is the basis for dismissal” ( IOM, 2012 ).

The evidence now available, some that has come to light only after Freedom of Information Act requests and court depositions, suggests that Duke University and its leadership failed in virtually all of these responsibilities: for undertaking clinical studies outside the established review structures; for the failure to pursue internal investigation of serious, documented concerns until forced by outside forces to do so; for withholding from an external committee the full Baggerly/Coombes critique; for referring responsibility for rechecking Potti's work back to the laboratory of his (explicitly conflicted) principal investigator, Joseph Nevins; for failing to employ the full set of institutional checks and balances that were in place; and for either incomplete or factually unsupportable statements made to the IOM Committee charged with examining the issue. The breadth and depth of these institutional failings are disappointing. Occurring in an institution of Duke's stature and resources, they raise troubling questions about the ability of research institutions, without more support and reinforcement, to manage complex cases when directed against prominent institutional researchers.

Duke suspended the trials and launched an investigation in the fall of 2009 in response to NCI concerns. However, this investigation had several serious flaws. Although the trials were resumed based on the report of the two external statistical experts, as noted above, these experts were not provided with several critical pieces of information. The IOM report also raises the possibility that Nevins was improperly in direct contact with the reviewers during the inquiry ( IOM, 2012 ). As for the clinical trials that were undertaken based on the fabricated work, 117 patients were ultimately enrolled. Duke later faced a lawsuit brought by the families of eight of these patients, which was settled in May 2015. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed ( Ramkumar, 2015 ).

In its Translational Medicine Quality Framework activity, Duke also identified an environment that might discourage postdocs or grad students from raising concerns with research within the lab or taking their concerns to others at the university as a possible problem. The university reported that it has established an ombudsman's office and taken other steps to address this.

Taken together, these institutional failings raise the question of whether, in addition to strengthening policies and procedures to the extent possible, research institutions should explore new mechanisms for bringing in outside perspectives in cases where it might be difficult for an institution to objectively address allegations of misconduct or other challenges to the soundness of science. In 2016, four members of the IOM committee published a piece critical of how Duke handled the case as an institution ( DeMets et al., 2016 ).

Journal Policies and Practices

Although Nature Medicine and the Journal of Clinical Oncology did publish letters from Baggerly, Coombes, and Wang questioning the validity of data, along with responses from Potti, they rejected further questioning of the Duke results. This is likely the result of the common journal practice of not publishing additional comments on an article that appear to repeat concerns already raised in a previously published comment, so as to avoid involving the journal in an ongoing dispute. Further, other journals that had published other articles reporting the Nevins-Potti work were not responsive to questions raised by Baggerly and Coombes. This stance contributed to delays in recognizing the nature and extent of the problems with the papers. The translational omics case raises issues of how scholarly publishers, institutions, and the broader community should respond when the work underlying numerous papers in a variety of journals is questioned.

Sponsor and Regulator Policies and Practices

The IOM report identifies some ambiguities in Food and Drug Administration requirements for launching clinical trials on diagnostics as possibly contributing to the clinical trials being launched prematurely and to delays in finally shutting them down ( IOM, 2012 ). The IOM report also points out that NCI felt constrained in communicating what it knew and the extent of its concerns with Duke and others early in the case, particularly before officials were aware that the agency was supporting aspects of the clinical trials ( IOM, 2012 ). More direct and complete communication would be helpful in future cases.

• THE RIKEN-STAP CASE

Synopsis and Rationale for Inclusion: The RIKEN-STAP case illustrates issues that may arise related to authorship roles, mentoring, and data falsification. The extent to which coauthors should be held responsible for the data and findings of papers on which they are listed is a recurring question in many research misconduct cases.

Yoshiki Sasai, a stem cell biologist of Japan's RIKEN research institute, committed suicide in August 2014 after the lead author on papers that he coauthored, Haruko Obokata, was found guilty of research misconduct ( RIKEN, 2014 ). Obokata claimed to have found that a process that reprogrammed somatic cells into pluripotent cells by exposing the cells to stress; the authors termed the process “stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency (STAP)” ( Obokata et al., 2014a , retracted). Obokata collaborated with Charles Vacanti's laboratory at Brigham and Women's Hospital, where the idea of STAP had supposedly originated ( Knoepfler, 2015 ). Vacanti, professor of anesthesiology at Harvard Medical School and former chairman of the Department of Anesthesia at the Brigham and Women's Hospital, was a corresponding author on one of the papers, a coauthor on the other, and Obokata's mentor while she worked as a postdoctoral research fellow at Brigham and Women's Hospital.

Shortly after Obokata's findings were published in Nature , outside researchers were unable to replicate the study or achieve similar results, prompting an internal RIKEN investigation. The investigation committee concluded that she had fabricated data in at least one of the papers ( RIKEN, 2014 ). The committee found problems with the data underlying the other papers, but was not able to conclude that fabrication or falsification had occurred because they did not have access to the original data ( RIKEN, 2014 ). The committee found that Sasai had no involvement with the data fabrication, but bore a “heavy responsibility” for the incident because he did not insist that experiments be repeated even after problems with the data became obvious ( RIKEN, 2014 )

Both Sasai and Obokata made public apologies, but maintained that STAP works. Already disgraced, the Japanese media soon began to make “unsubstantiated claims about [Sasai's] motivations” and personal life, as well as shame him for a lack of oversight responsibility, all of which, Sasai wrote in a suicide note, drove him to take his own life ( Cyranoski, 2014c ). Vacanti also maintained “absolute confidence” in the phenomenon and released follow-up protocols to the retracted Nature papers to assist in the reproducibility of STAP cells ( Vacanti and Kojima, 2014 ). Following RIKEN's investigation and the retraction of the Nature papers, Vacanti stepped down as chairman of the Department of Anesthesia at the Brigham and Women's Hospital and took a 1-year sabbatical from his professorship at Harvard Medical School. He did not reference the STAP case in his letter of resignation from Brigham and Women's Hospital.

• REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX D
• Allen M. The Goodwin Lab. Aug 14, 2012. Presentation to the committee.
• Baggerly KA. The Importance of Reproducible Research in High-Throughput Biology: Case Studies in Forensic Bioinformatics. 2010. [November 20, 2016]. Video Lecture. Available at: http: ​//videolectures ​.net/cancerbioinformatics2010 ​_baggerly_irrh/
• Baggerly KA. Learning from the Duke Case and the IOM Translational Omics Report: Context. Jul 9, 2012. Presentation to the committee.
• Baggerly KA, Coombes KR. Deriving chemosensitivity from cell lines: Forensic bio-informatics and reproducible research in high-throughput biology. Annals of Applied Statistics. 2009; 3 (4):1309–1334.
• Baron AE, Bandeen-Roche K, Berry DA, Bryan J, Carey VJ, Chaloner K, Delorenzi M, Efron B, Elston RC, Ghosh D, Goldberg JD, Goodman S, Harrell FE, Galloway Hilsenbeck S, Huber W, Irizarry RA, Kendziorski C, Kosorok MR, Louis TA, Marron JS, Newton M, Ochs M, Quackenbush J, Rosner GL, Ruczinski I, Skates S, Speed TP, Storey JD, Szallasi Z, Tibshirani R, Zeger S. Letter to Harold Varmus: Concerns About Prediction Models Used in Duke Clinical Trials. Bethesda, MD: Jul 19, 2010. [March 5, 2013]. http://www ​.cancerletter ​.com/categories/documents .
• Basken P. Chronicle of Higher Education. Aug 6, 2012. Academic Researchers Escape Scrutiny in Glaxo Fraud Settlement. http://www ​.chronicle ​.com/article/Academic-Researchers-Escape/133325/
• BMJ (British Medical Journal). Wakefield's article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. Jan 6, 2011. [November 12, 2016]. https://doi ​.org/10.1136/bmj.c7452 . [ PubMed : 21209060 ]
• Bosch X, Ross J. Ghostwriting: Research misconduct, plagiarism, or fool's gold? American Journal of Medicine. 2012; 125 (4):324–326. [ PubMed : 22305580 ]
• Boseley A. Lancet retracts “utterly false” MMR paper. The Guardian; Feb 2, 2010. http://www ​.theguardian ​.com/society/2010/feb ​/02/lancet-retracts-mmr-paper .
• Califf RM. Translational Medicine Quality Framework: Challenges and Opportunities. Jul 9, 2012. Presentation to the committee.
• CBS News. Deception at Duke 60 Minutes. Feb 12, 2012.
• Coombes KR, Wang J, Baggerly KA. Microarrays: Retracing steps. Nature Medicine. 2007; 13 :1276–1277. [ PubMed : 17987014 ]
• COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. 2011. [July 23, 2013]. http: ​//publicationethics ​.org/files/Code_of ​_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf .
• Couzin J. Truth and consequences. Science. 2006; 313 :1222–1226. [ PubMed : 16946046 ]
• Cyranoski D. Stem-cell pioneer accused of faking data. Nature. 2005 December 15; [ CrossRef ]
• Cyranoski D. Cloning comeback. Nature. 2014a January 23; 505 (7484) [ PubMed : 24451524 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cyranoski D. Whistle-blower breaks his silence. Nature. 2014b January 30; 505 (7485) [ PubMed : 24476864 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cyranoski D. Nature. Aug 13, 2014c. Stem-cell pioneer blamed media ‘bashing’ in suicide note. http://www ​.nature.com ​/news/stem-cell-pioneer-blamed-media-bashing-in-suicidenote-1.15715 .
• Cyranoski D, Check E. Clone star admits lies over eggs. Nature. 2005a December 1; 438 :536–537. [ PubMed : 16319847 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cyranoski D, Check E. Stem-cell brothers divide. Nature. 2005b November 16; 438 :262–263. [ PubMed : 16292267 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Deer B. Exposed: Andrew Wakefield and the MMR-autism fraud. 2011a. http://briandeer ​.com/mmr/lancet-summary ​.htm .
• Deer B. How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed. BMJ. 2011b; 342 :77–82. [ PubMed : 21209059 ]
• Deer B. Disgraced ex-doctor fails in his fourth attempt to gag media. 2014. http://briandeer ​.com ​/solved/slapp-introduction.htm .
• DeMets DL, Fleming TR, Geller G, Ransohoff DF. Institutional responsibility and the flawed genomic biomarkers at Duke University: A missed opportunity for transparency and accountability. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2016 November 23; [ PubMed : 27882502 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Duke University. Review of Genomic Predictors for Clinical Trials from Nevins, Potti, and Barry. 2009.
• Economist, The. Trouble at the lab. Oct 19, 2013. https://www ​.economist ​.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble .
• Eggertson L. Lancet retracts 12-year-old article linking autism to MMR vaccines. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2010; 182 (4):188–200. [ PMC free article : PMC2831678 ] [ PubMed : 20142376 ]
• FDA (Food and Drug Administration). (Draft) Guidance for Industry: Distributing Scientific and Medical Publications on Risk Information for Approved Prescription Drugs and Biological Products—Recommended Practices. 2014. http://www ​.fda.gov/downloads ​/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation ​/guidances/ucm400104.pdf .
• Goldberg P. Duke officials silenced med student who reported trouble in Anil Potti's lab. Cancer Letter. 2015 January 9; 41 (1)
• Goldberg P. Prominent Duke scientist claimed prizes he didn't win, including Rhodes Scholarship. The Cancer Letter. 2010; 36 (27):1–7.
• Holden C. Schatten: Pitt panel finds “misbehavior” but not misconduct. Science. 2006; 311 :928. [ PubMed : 16484456 ]
• Hooker BS. Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination timing and autism among young African American boys: A reanalysis of CDC data. Translational Neurodegeneration. 2014; 3 :16. RETRACTED. [ PMC free article : PMC4128611 ] [ PubMed : 25114790 ]
• Hwang WS, Young JR, Park JH, Park ES, Lee EG, Koo JM, Jeon HY, Lee BC, Kang SK, Kim SJ, Ahn C, Hwang JH, Park KY, Cibelli JB, Moon SY. Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst. Science. 2004; 303 (5664):1669–1674. RETRACTED. [ PubMed : 14963337 ]
• ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. 2015. [November 14, 2016]. Updated December 2015. http://www ​.icmje.org/recommendations/
• IOM (Institute of Medicine). Evolution of Translational Omics: Lessons Learned and the Path Forward. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2012. [ PubMed : 24872966 ]
• Kaiser J. Duke University officials rebuffed medical student's allegations of research problems. Science. 2015 January 12; [ CrossRef ]
• Keller MB, Birmacher B, Clarke GN, Emslie GJ, Koplewicz H, Kutcher S, Ryan N, Sack WH, Strober M. Letter to Retraction Watch. 2015. http: ​//retractionwatch ​.com/wp-content/uploads ​/2015/12/Response-to-BMJ-Article-9-1515.pdf .
• Kennedy D. Editorial Retraction: Retraction of Hwang et al., Science 308(5729): 1777-1783. Science. 2006; 311 (5759):335.
• Knoepfler P. Knoepfler Lab Stem Cell Blog. Sep 23, 2015. New Nature papers debunk STAP cells. http://www ​.ipscell.com ​/tag/charles-vacanti/
• Lancet Editors. Retraction—Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet. 2010; 375 (9713):445. doi: http://dx ​.doi.org/10 ​.1016/S0140-6736(10)60175-4 . [ PubMed : 20137807 ]
• Le Noury J, Nardo J, Healy D, Jureidini J, Raven M, Tufanaru C, Abi-Jaoude E. Restoring study 329: Efficacy and harms of paroxetine and imipramine in treatment of major depression in adolescence. BMJ. 2015; 351 :h4320. https://doi ​.org/10.1136/bmj.h4320 . [ PMC free article : PMC4572084 ] [ PubMed : 26376805 ]
• Lindell M. Court: Andrew Wakefield, autism researcher, cannot sue in Texas. Statesman News. 2014 September 19;
• Murch SH, Anthony A, Casson DH, Malik M, Berelowitz M, Dhillon AP, Thomson MA, Valentine A, Davies SE, Walker-Smith JA. Retraction of an interpretation. The Lancet. 2004; 363 (9411):750. [ PubMed : 15016483 ]
• ORI (Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Research Integrity). Case Summary: Goodwin, Elizabeth. Aug 24, 2010.
• ORI. Office of Research Integrity Newsletter. 4. Vol. 22. 2014.
• ORI. ORI Case Summary: Potti, Anil. 2015. [November 22, 2016]. https://ori ​.hhs.gov/content ​/case-summary-potti-anil .
• Perez B. Letter to Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Apr 22, 2008. [November 22, 2016]. https://issuu ​.com/thecancerletter ​/docs/duke_letters_to_hhmi .
• Potti A, Nevins J. Reply to “Microarrays: retracing steps.” Nature Medicine. 2007; 13 :1277–1278.
• Ramkumar A. Duke Chronicle. May 3, 2015. Duke lawsuit involving cancer patients linked to Anil Potti settled.
• Reich ES. Self-plagiarism case prompts calls for agencies to tighten rules. Nature. 2010a; 768 (745) [ PubMed : 21150967 ]
• Reich ES. Nature News. Sep 7, 2010b. [January 4, 2017]. Troubled geneticist rebuffed by US patent office. http://www ​.nature.com ​/news/2010/100907/full/news ​.2010.450.html .
• Reich ES. Fresh dispute about MMR “fraud.” Nature. 2011; 479 :157–158. [ PubMed : 22071737 ]
• RIKEN. Report on STAP Cell Research Paper Investigation. 2014. [November 8, 2016]. http://www3 ​.riken.jp ​/stap/e/c13document52.pdf .
• Sang-Hun C. New York Times. Oct 26, 2009. Disgraced cloning expert convicted in South Korea.
• Singer N. Duke scientist suspended over Rhodes Scholar claims. New York Times. 2010 July 20;
• SNU (Seoul National University). Text of the Report on Dr. Hwang Woo Suk. New York Times. 2006 January 6;
• Stern S, Lemmens T. Legal remedies for medical ghostwriting: Imposing fraud liability on guest authors of ghostwritten articles. PLOS Medicine. 2011; 8 (8):e1001070. [ PMC free article : PMC3149079 ] [ PubMed : 21829331 ]
• Taylor B, Miller E, Farrington CP, Petropoulos MC, Favot-Mayaud I, Li J, Waight PA. Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: No epidemiologic evidence for a causal association. The Lancet. 1999; 353 :2026–2029. [ PubMed : 10376617 ]
• Thomas K, Schmidt M. New York Times. Jul 2, 2012. Glaxo agrees to pay $3 billion in fraud settlement.
• Tracer Z. Duke Chronicle. Sep 14, 2010. [January 3, 2017]. Health care companies cut ties with Potti. http://www ​.dukechronicle ​.com/article/2010 ​/09/health-care-companies-cut-ties-potti .
• Translational Neurodegeneration Editor and Publisher. Retraction Note: Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination timing and autism among young African American boys: a reanalysis of CDC data. Translational Neurodegeneration. 2014 October 3; 3 (22) https: ​//translationalneurodegeneration ​.biomedcentral ​.com/articles/10 ​.1186/2047-9158-3-22 . [ PMC free article : PMC4183946 ] [ PubMed : 25285211 ]
• Triggle N. BBC News. May 24, 2010. [November 12, 2016]. MMR doctor struck from register. http://news ​.bbc.co.uk ​/2/hi/health/8695267.stm .
• UCL (University College London). MMR and the development of a research governance framework. UCL News. 2012 September 13; http://www ​.ucl.ac.uk ​/news/news-articles/1209 ​/13092012-Governance .
• UK GMC (United Kingdom General Medical Council). Fitness to Practice Panel Hearing. Jan 28, 2010.
• University of Pittsburgh. Summary Investigative Report on Allegations of Possible Scientific Misconduct on the Part of Gerald P. Schatten, Ph.D. Feb 8, 2006.
• University of Pittsburgh. Research Integrity Policy. 2008. https://www ​.cfo.pitt ​.edu/policies/policy/11/11-01-01.html .
• Vacanti CA, Kojima K. Revised STAP Cell Protocol. Brigham and Women's Hospital. 2014. http://research ​.bwhanesthesia ​.org/research-groups ​/cterm/stap-cell-protocol .
• Wade N. New York Times. Dec 7, 2005. Journal defends stem cell article despite photo slip.
• Wade N. New York Times. Nov 29, 2006. Journal faulted in publishing Korean's claims.
• Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M, Berelowitz M, Dhillon AP, Thomson MA, Harvey P, Valentine A, Davies SE, Walker-Smith JA. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet. 1998; 351 (9103):637–641. RETRACTED. [ PubMed : 9500320 ]
• Winter S. BioTechniques. Sep 17, 2010. [December 5, 2016]. Former Wisconsin researcher sentenced for misconduct. www ​.biotechniques.com ​/news/Former-Wisconsin-researcher-sentenced-formisconduct ​/biotechniques-302891 ​.html .
• Ziv S. Newsweek. Feb 10, 2015. Andrew Wakefield, father of the anti-vaccine movement, responds to the current measles outbreak for the first time.

The United Kingdom General Medical Council's findings of fact from its January 2010 hearing are available in document form. Its verdict finding Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct and decision to strike him from the medical register are not available in document form, having been read aloud at a May 2010 hearing, so a news report of this hearing is cited.

• Cite this Page National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Policy and Global Affairs; Committee on Science, Engineering, Medicine, and Public Policy; Committee on Responsible Science. Fostering Integrity in Research. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2017 Apr 11. Appendix D, Detailed Case Histories.
• PDF version of this title (3.0M)

In this Page

Related information.

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

• Detailed Case Histories - Fostering Integrity in Research Detailed Case Histories - Fostering Integrity in Research

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

• < Previous Dissertation

Home > gradstudies > UNL Dissertations > 208

Graduate Studies

Dissertations and Doctoral Documents from University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2023–

Fighting racism and hate: a case study of black graduate students' perceptions of a university president's responses to racialized incidents.

Kaleb L. Briscoe , University of Nebraska-Lincoln Follow

0000-0002-6333-9867

First Advisor

Deryl K. Hatch-Tocaimaza

Committee Members

Christina W. Yao, Stephanie Bondi, Sydney Freeman, Jr., Amanda Morales

Educational Studies (Educational Leadership and Higher Education)

Date of this Version

Document type.

Dissertation

A dissertation presented to the faculty of the Graduate College at the University of nebraska in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Major: Educational Studies (Educational Leadership and Higher Education)

Under the supervision of Professor Deryl K. Hatch-Tocaimaza

Lincoln, Nebraska, February 2020

Copyright 2020, Kaleb L. Briscoe.Used by permission

This qualitative, single case study examined Black graduate students’ perceptions of a university president’s responses to racialized incidents and how these perceptions inform Black graduate students’ larger contextual understanding of campus racial climate. Guided by Hurtado et al.’s (2012) Multi-Contextual Model for Diverse Learning Environments, the research questions were: What are Black graduate students’ perceptions of a university president’s responses to racialized incidents at a PWI? How do Black graduate students’ perceptions of a university president’s responses to racialized incidents inform their larger contextual understanding of campus racial climate at a PWI? Data was analyzed on an institutional-level through institutional documents, president statements, and one, 60 minute interview with 4 staff members and on an individual-level through a demographic survey and two, 60-90 minute interviews with 12 Black graduate students from a large, predominantly White institution in the Mid-Atlantic, the University of Maryland.

The findings were displayed through narrative summaries. As a result of the president’s responses to racialized incidents, Black graduate students felt othered, marginalized, and silenced. Findings demonstrated the lack of institutional response strategies that the president of University of Maryland used to address racialized incidents. Overall, participants viewed the president’s responses to racialized incidents as being untimely, inadequate, and inappropriate. Almost all students and staff participants shared that the president’s responses to racialized incidents through campus statements used non-performative and anti-Blackness rhetoric. Black graduate students reported that the president’s responses, from their vantage point, lacked action-oriented language, next steps, and strategies to assist them during the aftermath of the incidents.

The findings from this study underscored a direct connection between the president’s responses to racialized incidents and how Black graduate students at one campus perceive racial climate as being negative. This further illustrates the significance of the role of the presidency when addressing issues of race and racism, and how their responses have the power to disrupt or harm both the personal lived experiences of individuals and the broader campus racial climate for Black graduate students. Several implications for practice and recommendations for theory and future research are offered.

Recommended Citation

Briscoe, Kaleb L., "Fighting Racism and Hate: A Case Study of Black Graduate Students' Perceptions of a University President's Responses to Racialized Incidents" (2020). Dissertations and Doctoral Documents from University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2023– . 208. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/dissunl/208

Since September 16, 2024

Included in

Educational Sociology Commons , Higher Education Commons , Inequality and Stratification Commons , Leadership Studies Commons , Race and Ethnicity Commons , Race, Ethnicity and Post-Colonial Studies Commons

Advanced Search

Search Help

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Administrator Resources
• How to Cite Items From This Repository
• Copyright Information
• Collections
• Disciplines

Author Corner

• Guide to Submitting
• gradstudies Website

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Engineering Case Studies

• Getting Started
• Finding Case Studies in the U-M Library
• Case Studies That Are Freely Available
• Selected Case Studies Books

General Contact

Librarians are happy to help with any research questions, or to have a consultation in-person or virtually. Contact us below.

[email protected]

Schedule an Appointment 

What Is a Case Study?

Case studies  (also called "case histories") are accounts of real engineering situations and projects that provide a context for engineers and others to explore problems. Case studies typically involve complex issues where there is often no single correct answer--you may be asked to select the "best" answer given the situation. Case Studies are found in many places, including book collections, scholarly articles, educational videos and the websites of professional organizations, and more.

Case studies allow you to:

Explore  the nature of a problem and circumstances that affect a solution

Observe  theories applied in a real-life situation

Learn  about others' viewpoints and how they may be taken into account

Define  your priorities and make your own decisions to solve the problem

Predict  outcomes and consequences

Source: University of Washington Library

• Next: Finding Case Studies in the U-M Library >>
• Last Updated: Aug 28, 2024 12:02 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.umich.edu/engrcasestudies

info This is a space for the teal alert bar.

notifications This is a space for the yellow alert bar.

Research Methodology and Design

• Research Methodology
• Seminal Authors
• Qualitative Research Methods
• Quantitative Research Methods
• Mixed Methods
• Action Research
• Case Study Design
• Constructive Research
• Ethnography
• Phenomenology
• Research Ethics & Quality
• Dissertations
• Organizing Research & Citations This link opens in a new window

Case Study FAQs

Selected videos.

Learn how to locate videos in the Library. See the FAQ: Where can I locate videos in the Library?

• An Introduction to Case Studies Professor Todd Landman explains how case studies can be used in research. He discusses the importance of choosing a case study correctly and warns about limitations of case study research.
• Researching Employee Absenteeism Using the Case Study Method Professor W. Tad Foster presents a case study that addressed an employer's concerns about absenteeism.
• Researching Innovation in Qualitative Research Using In-depth Case Studies Professor Melanie Nind discusses innovation in research methods and what it means to innovate.

Selected Background Information

Learn how to find background information in the Library. See the FAQ: How can I find general information about a topic?  

Was this resource helpful?

• << Previous: Action Research
• Next: Constructive Research >>
• Last Updated: Aug 6, 2024 6:04 PM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/methods

© Copyright 2024 National University. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Consumer Information

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
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Does being involved in a research project enhance the postgraduate taught student experience: A qualitative research case study

Affiliation.

• 1 Canterbury Christ Church University, North Holmes Road, Canterbury, England CT1 1QU, UK. Electronic address: [email protected].
• PMID: 39299057
• DOI: 10.1016/j.nepr.2024.104146

Background: Postgraduate taught nursing students face many challenges, including lack of confidence in their own knowledge and skills which might create anxiety and impact on the development of research expertise. Therefore, to address and support the development and acquisition of student understanding it is important to explore and be cognizant of the student's experience. This will facilitate enhancement of the curriculum, whilst improving future career aspirations and the provision of evidence-based care in practice.

Aim: To evaluate the participation of a postgraduate taught nursing student in a research project.

Design: Case study methodology was used to explore the lived experience of participating in a research project.

Methods: Mixed qualitative methods were used which included a semi-structured interview and photo-elicitation whereby the participant provided a significant photograph for discussion during the semi-structured interview.

Results: Analysis revealed 2 superordinate themes which focused on 1) The Impact of learning and 2) The Workplace Environment.

Conclusions: The participation in living research, as part of a collaborative team has the potential to nurture the confidence of the student in their own abilities to generate new knowledge which can inform the provision of care. The workplace needs to be invested in this journey with leadership valuing the contribution that participation in research can make to the delivery of care. Leaders of postgraduate taught programmes should consider ways which would benefit students to reflect participation in ongoing research.

Keywords: Creative methods; Education; Research; case study; postgraduate taught nursing student.

Crown Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Elsevier Science
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

New study reveals why Alzheimer's patients lose ability to defend against brain corrosion

Findings offer hope for development of new medications

A new study by researchers at  Case Western Reserve University  revealed that the progression of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) can be slowed by suppressing a specific protein in the brain that causes corrosion.

A main pathogenic initiator of AD and related dementias is oxidative stress, which corrodes the brain, called oxidative damage.

David E. Kang, the Howard T. Karsner Professor in Pathology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine  and the study’s lead researcher, said they’ve identified for the first time a cause for the loss of so-called “oxidative damage defense” in AD.

A protein called Nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2) is regularly activated in response to oxidative stress to protect the brain from oxidative damage. But in the brain of someone with AD, Nrf2 defense against oxidative stress declines. How that occurs in AD was unknown.

The study, recently published in the peer-reviewed journal  PNAS ,  found a protein called Slingshot Homolog-1, or SSH1, stops Nrf2 from carrying out its protective biological activity.

Genetically eliminating SSH1 increases Nrf2 activation and slows the development of oxidative damage and buildup of toxic plaques and tangles in the brain—both risk factors for AD. As a result, the regular connections between brain cells are maintained and degeneration of brain nerve cells is avoided, they found.

The finding is significant because most clinical trials have been conducted with people with advanced dementia. The tests focused mainly on managing and reducing symptoms to enhance daily functioning and quality of life.

“Focusing on clinical trials in the early stages of AD increases the likelihood of success,” Kang said. “In the upcoming five years, I also think we’ll see modest improvements in treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, which will help slow AD’s course.”

For example, clinical trials for Leqembi—medication for early AD recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration—have shown somewhat promising results to slow progression of the disease.

Case Western Reserve is among those working on SSH1 inhibitor compounds as potential neuroprotective medicines.

“Many promising drug candidates are certainly in the pipeline,” Kang said.

For more information contact Patty Zamora at  [email protected] .

This article was originally published July 25, 2023.

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Writing a Case Study

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Reading Research Effectively
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Essays
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Bibliography

The term case study refers to both a method of analysis and a specific research design for examining a problem, both of which are used in most circumstances to generalize across populations. This tab focuses on the latter--how to design and organize a research paper in the social sciences that analyzes a specific case.

A case study research paper examines a person, place, event, 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 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 among more than two 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 this writing guide. Review this page because it may help you identify a subject of analysis that can be investigated using a single 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:

• Does the case represent 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.
• Does the case provide 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.
• Does the case challenge and offer 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 practice. A case may offer you 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 the study a case in order 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.
• Does the case provide 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 in order to better warn drivers of an approaching train, particularly when visibility is hindered by heavy rain, fog, or at night.
• Does the case offer a new direction in future research? A case study can be used as a tool for exploratory research that points to a need for further examination of the research 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 Uganda. A case study of how women contribute to saving water in a particular village 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 throughout rural regions of east Africa. The case could also point to the need for scholars to apply 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 was I studying? Describe the research problem and describe the subject of analysis 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 was 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 research 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 include 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 study 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 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 the context of explaining the relevance of the case in addressing the research problem.

III.  Method

In this section, you explain why you selected a particular subject of analysis to study 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 frames 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; c) what were the consequences of the event.

If your subject of analysis is a person. Explain why you selected this particular individual to be studied and describe what experience he or she has had that provides 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 his/her 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 him or her 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.

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, cultural, economic, political, etc.], 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, why study 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 reveals 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? How might knowing the suppliers of these trucks from overseas 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 be linked to the findings from the literature review. Be sure to cite any prior studies that helped you determine that the case you chose was appropriate for investigating the research 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 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 more common to combine a description of the findings 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 to 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 It is important to 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 for 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.

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 needs for further research.

The function of your paper's conclusion is to: 1)  restate the main argument supported by the findings from the analysis of your case; 2) clearly state 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 for you 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 and your professor's preferences, the concluding paragraph may contain your final reflections on the evidence presented applied 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 on 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 differently 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.

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: Reviewing Collected Essays
• Next: Writing a Field Report >>
• Last Updated: Jan 17, 2023 10:50 AM
• URL: https://libguides.pointloma.edu/ResearchPaper