case study in social work research

Advertisement

A Case for the Case Study: How and Why They Matter

• Original Paper
• Published: 06 June 2017
• Volume 45 , pages 189–200, ( 2017 )

Cite this article

• Jeffrey Longhofer 1 ,
• Jerry Floersch 1 &
• Eric Hartmann 2  

3968 Accesses

13 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In this special issue we have asked the contributors to make a case for the case study. The guest editors, Jeffrey Longhofer, Jerry Floersch and Eric Hartmann, intergrate ideas from across the disciplines to explore the complexties of case study methods and theory. In education, Gary Thomas explores the importance of ethnographic case studies in understanding the relationships among schools, teachers, and students. Lance Dodes and Josh Dodes use the case study to articulate a psychoanalytic approach to addiction. In policy and generalist practice, Nancy Cartwright and Jeremy Hardie elaborate a model for a case-by-case approach to prediction and the swampy ground prediction serves up to practitioners. Christian Salas and Oliver Turnbull persuasively write about the role of the case study in neuro-psychoanalysis and illustrate it with a case vignette. In political science, Sanford Schram argues for a bottom up and ethnographic approach to studying policy implementation by describing a case of a home ownership program in Philadelphia. Eric Hartman queers the case study by articulating its role in deconstructing normative explanations of sexuality. In applied psychology, Daniel Fishman describes a comprehensive applied psychology perspective on the paradigmatic case study. Richard Miller and Miriam Jaffe offer us important ways of thinking about writing the case study and the use of multi-media. Each contributor brings a unique perspective to the use of the case study in their field, yet they share practical and philosophical assumptions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Why do children and adolescents (not) seek and access professional help for their mental health problems? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies

Thematic Analysis

The potential of working hypotheses for deductive exploratory research

Aastrup, J., & Halldórsson, Á (2008). Epistemological role of case studies in logistics: A critical realist perspective. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38 (10), 746–763.

Article   Google Scholar  

Abbott, A. (1992). What do cases do? Some notes on activity in sociological analysis. In C. C. Ragin, & H. S. Becker (Eds.), What is a case?: Exploring the foundations of social inquiry (pp. 53–82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar  

Ahbel-Rappe, K. (2009). “After a long pause”: How to read Dora as history. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 57 (3), 595–629.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Alfonso, C. A. (2002). Frontline—writing psychoanalytic case reports: Safeguarding privacy while preserving integrity. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry, 30 (2), 165–172.

Altstein, R. (2016). Finding words: How the process and products of psychoanalytic writing can channel the therapeutic action of the very treatment it sets out to describe. Psychoanalytic Perspectives, 13 (1), 51–70.

Anderson, W. (2013). The case of the archive. Critical Inquiry, 39 (3), 532–547.

Antommaria, A. (2004). Do as I say, not as I do: Why bioethicists should seek informed consent for some case studies. Hastings Center Report, 34 (3), 28–34.

Archer, M. S. (2010). Routine, reflexivity, and realism. Sociological Theory , 28 (3), 272–303.

Aron, L. (2000). Ethical considerations in the writing of psychoanalytic case histories. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 10 (2), 231–245.

Aron, L. (2016). Ethical considerations in psychoanalytic writing revisited. Psychoanalytic Perspectives, 13 (3), 267–290.

Barth, M., & Thomas, I. (2012). Synthesising case-study research: Ready for the next step? Environmental Education Research, 18 (6), 751–764.

Benner, P. (1982). From novice to expert. The American Journal of Nursing, 82 (3), 402–407.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Benner, P. (2000a). The wisdom of our practice. The American Journal of Nursing, 100 (10), 99–105.

Benner, P. (2000b). The roles of embodiment, emotion and lifeworld for rationality and agency in nursing practice. Nursing Philosophy, 1 (1), 5–19.

Benner, P. (2004). Using the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition to describe and interpret skill acquisition and clinical judgment in nursing practice and education. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24 (3), 188–199.

Bennett, A., & Elman, C. (2006). Qualitative research: Recent developments in case study methods. Annual Review of Political Science, 9 , 455–476.

Bennett, A., & Elman, C. (2007). Case study methods in the international relations subfield. Comparative Political Studies, 40 (2), 170–195.

Bergene, A. (2007). Towards a critical realist comparative methodology. Journal of Critical Realism, 3 (1), 5–27.

Berlant, L. (2007). On the case. Critical Inquiry, 33 (4), 663–672.

Bernstein, S. B. (2008a). Writing about the psychoanalytic process. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 28 (4), 433–449.

Bernstein, S. B. (2008b). Writing, rewriting, and working through. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 28 (4), 450–464.

Blechner, M. (2012). Confidentiality: Against disguise, for consent. Psychotherapy, 49 (1), 16–18.

Bornstein, R. F. (2007). Nomothetic psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 24 (4), 590–602.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The scholastic point of view. Cultural Anthropology, 5 (4), 380–391.

Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian meditations . Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Boyce, N. (2015). Dora in the 21st century. Lancet, 386 (9997), 948–949.

Brandell, J., & Varkas, T. (2010). Narrative case studies. In B. Thyer (Ed.), The handbook of social work research methods (Chap. 20, pp. 375–396). Los Angeles: SAGE

Bunch, W. H., & Dvonch, V. M. (2000). Moral decisions regarding innovation: The case method. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 378 , 44–49.

Burawoy, M. (1998). The extended case method. Sociological theory, 16 (1), 4–33.

Campbell, D. T. (1975). “Degrees of freedom” and the case study. Comparative Political Studies, 8 (2), 178–193.

Carlson, J. (2010). Commentary: Writing about clients—ethical and professional issues in clinical case reports. Counseling and Values, 54 (2), 154–157.

Cartwright, N. (2007). Are RCTs the gold standard? BioSocieties, 2 (1), 11–20.

Cartwright, N. (2011). A philosopher’s view of the long road from RCTs to effectiveness. Lancet, 377 (9775), 1400–1401.

Charlton, B. G., & Walston, F. (1998). Individual case studies in clinical research. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 4 (2), 147–155.

Colombo, D., & Michels, R. (2007). Can (should) case reports be written for research use? Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 27 (5), 640–649.

Damousi, J., Lang, B., & Sutton, K. (Eds.) (2015). Case studies and the dissemination of knowledge . London: Routledge Press.

Desmet, M., Meganck, R., Seybert, C., Willemsen, J., Geerardyn, F., Declercq, F., & Schindler, I. (2012). Psychoanalytic single cases published in ISI-ranked journals: The construction of an online archive. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 82 (2), 120–121.

Dobson, P. J. (2001). Longitudinal case research: A critical realist perspective. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 14 (3), 283–296.

Dreyfus, H. L. (2008). On the internet . London: Routledge Press.

Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (2005). Peripheral vision expertise in real world contexts. Organization Studies, 26 (5), 779–792.

Easton, G. (2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39 (1), 118–128.

Edelson, M. (1985). The hermeneutic turn and the single case study in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis & Contemporary Thought, 8 , 567–614.

Feagin, J. R., Orum, A. M., & Sjoberg, G. (Eds.) (1991). A case for the case study . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Ferguson, H. (2016). Researching social work practice close up: Using ethnographic and mobile methods to understand encounters between social workers, children and families. British Journal of Social Work, 46 (1), 153–168.

Fisher, M. A. (2013). The ethics of conditional confidentiality: A practice model for mental health professionals . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Fleischman, J. (2002). Phineas Gage: A gruesome but true story about brain science . New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Floersch, J. (2000). Reading the case record: The oral and written narratives of social workers. Social Service Review, 74 (2), 169–192.

Floersch, J. (2002). Meds, money, and manners: The case management of severe mental illness . Columbia: Columbia University Press.

Floersch, J., & Longhofer, J. (2016). Social work and the scholastic fallacy. Investigacao Em Trabalho Social, 3 , 71–91. https://www.isssp.pt/si/web_base.gera_pagina?p_pagina=21798 .

Florek, A. G., & Dellavalle, R. P. (2016). Case reports in medical education: A platform for training medical students, residents, and fellows in scientific writing and critical thinking. Journal of Medical Case Reports, 10 (1), 1.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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

Flyvbjerg, B., Landman, T., & Schram, S. (Eds.). (2012). Real social science: Applied phronesis . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Forrester, J. (1996). If p, then what? Thinking in cases. History of the Human Sciences, 9 (3), 1–25.

Forrester, J. (2007). On Kuhn’s case: Psychoanalysis and the paradigm. Critical Inquiry, 33 (4), 782–819.

Foucault, M. (1994). The birth of the clinic: An archaeology of medical perception . London: Routledge Press.

Freeman, W. J. (2000). How brains make up their minds . New York: Columbia University Press.

Freud, S. (1905). Fragment of an analysis of a case of hysteria. Standard Edition , 7 , 7–122.

Freud, S. (1909a). Analysis of a phobia in a five-year-old boy. Standard Edition , 10 , 5–147.

Freud, S. (1909b). Notes upon a case of obsessional neurosis. Standard Edition , 10 , 151–318.

Freud, S. (1911). Psycho-analytic notes on an autobiographical account of a case of paranoia (dementia paranoides). Standard Edition , 12 , 9–79.

Freud, S. (1918). From the history of an infantile neurosis. Standard Edition , 17 , 7–122.

George, A. L. & Bennett, A. (2004). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review, 98 (02), 341–354.

Gerring, J. (2007a). Case study research: Principles and practices . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gerring, J. (2007b). Is there a (viable) crucial-case method? Comparative Political Studies, 40 (3), 231–253.

Gilgun, J. F. (1994). A case for case studies in social work research. Social Work, 39 , 371–380.

Gottdiener, W. H., & Suh, J. J. (2012). Expanding the single-case study: A proposed psychoanalytic research program. The Psychoanalytic Review, 99 (1), 81–102.

Gupta, M. (2007). Does evidence-based medicine apply to psychiatry? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 28 (2), 103–120.

Gupta, M. (2014). Is evidence-based psychiatry ethical? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gwande, A. (2014). Being mortal: Medicine and what matters most in the end . New York: Metropolitan Books.

Haas, L. (2001). Phineas Gage and the science of brain localisation. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 71 (6), 761.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Haggis, T. (2008). ‘Knowledge must be contextual’: Some possible implications of complexity and dynamic systems theories for educational research. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40 (1), 158–176.

Hare-Mustin, R. T. (1983). An appraisal of the relationship between women and psychotherapy: 80 years after the case of Dora. American Psychologist, 38 (5), 593–601.

Held, B. S. (2009). The logic of case-study methodology. Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy, 5 (3), 90–100.

Hoffman, I. Z. (2009). Doublethinking our way to “scientific” legitimacy: The desiccation of human experience. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 57 (5), 1043–1069.

Hollan, D., & Throop, C. J. (2008). Whatever happened to empathy?: Introduction. Ethos, 36 (4), 385–401.

Hurwitz, B. (2011). Clinical cases and case reports: Boundaries and porosities. The Case and the Canon. Anomalies, Discontinuities, Metaphors Between Science and Literature , 45–57.

Ioannidis, J. P., Haidich, A. B., & Lau, J. (2001). Any casualties in the clash of randomized and observational evidence? British Medical Journal, 322 , 879–880.

Iosifides, T. (2012). Migration research between positivistic scientism and relativism: A critical realist way out. In C. Vargas-Silva (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in migration (pp. 26–49). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Kächele, H., Schachter, J., & Thomä, H. (2011). From psychoanalytic narrative to empirical single case research: Implications for psychoanalytic practice (vol. 30). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Kantrowitz, J. L. (2004). Writing about patients: I. Ways of protecting confidentiality and analysts’ conflicts over choice of method. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 52 (1), 69–99.

Ketokivi, M., & Choi, T. (2014). Renaissance of case research as a scientific method. Journal of Operations Management, 32 (5), 232–240.

Kitchin, R. (2014a). Big data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data & Society, 1 (1), 1–12.

Kitchin, R. (2014b). The data revolution: Big data, open data, data infrastructures and their consequences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.

Kitchin, R., & Lauriault, T. P. (2015). Small data in the era of big data. GeoJournal, 80 (4), 463–475.

Koenig, G. (2009). Realistic evaluation and case studies stretching the potential. Evaluation, 15 (1), 9–30.

Lahire, B. (2011). The plural actor . Cambridge: Polity.

Leong, S. M. (1985). Metatheory and metamethodology in marketing, a lakatosian reconstruction. Journal of Marketing, 49 (4), 23–40.

Levy, J. S. (2008). Case studies: Types, designs, and logics of inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25 (1), 1–18.

Longhofer, J., & Floersch, J. (2012). The coming crisis in social work: Some thoughts on social work and science. Research on Social Work Practice, 22 (5), 499–519.

Longhofer, J., & Floersch, J. (2014). Values in a science of social work: Values-informed research and research-informed values. Research on Social Work Practice, 24 (5), 527–534.

Longhofer, J., Floersch, J., & Hoy, J. (2013). Qualitative methods for practice research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Luyten, P., Corveleyn, J., & Blatt, S. J. (2006). Minding the gap between positivism and hermeneutics in psychoanalytic research. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 54 (2), 571–610.

Macmillan, M. (2000). Restoring phineas gage: A 150th retrospective. Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, 9 (1), 46–66.

Mahoney, J., Kimball, E., & Koivu, K. L. (2009). The logic of historical explanation in the social sciences. Comparative Political Studies, 42 (1), 114–146.

Marchal, B., Westhorp, G., Wong, G., Van Belle, S., Greenhalgh, T., Kegels, G., & Pawson, R. (2013). Realist RCTs of complex interventions: An oxymoron. Social Science & Medicine, 94 (12), 124–128.

Maroglin, L. (1997). Under the cover of kindness. The invention of social work . Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

McKeown, A. (2015). Critical realism and empirical bioethics: A methodological exposition. Health Care Analysis, 1–21. doi: 10.1007/s10728-015-0290-2 .

McLeod, J. (2010). Case study research in counseling and psychotherapy . Thousand Oaks, LA: Sage Publications.

McLeod, J. (2015). Reading case studies to inform therapeutic practice. In Psychotherapie forum (vol. 20, No. 1–2, pp. 3–9). Vienna: Springer.

McLeod, J., & Balamoutsou, S. (1996). Representing narrative process in therapy: Qualitative analysis of a single case. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 9 (1), 61–76.

Mearsheimer, J. J., & Walt, S. M. (2013). Leaving theory behind: Why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad for international relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19 (3), 427–457.

Michels, R. (2000). The case history. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 48 (2), 355–375.

Miller, E. (2009). Writing about patients: What clinical and literary writers share. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 57 (5), 1097–1120.

Mingers, J. (2004). Realizing information systems: Critical realism as an underpinning philosophy for information systems. Information and Organization, 14 (2), 87–103.

Mishna, F. (2004). A qualitative study of bullying from multiple perspectives. Children & Schools, 26 (4), 234–247.

Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society , 3(2), 2053951716679679

Morgan, M. S. (2012). Case studies: One observation or many? Justification or discovery? Philosophy of Science, 79 (5), 667–677.

Naiburg, S. (2015). Structure and spontaneity in clinical prose: A writer’s guide for psychoanalysts and psychotherapists . London: Routledge Press.

Nissen, T., & Wynn, R. (2014a). The clinical case report: A review of its merits and limitations. BMC Research Notes, 7 (1), 1–7.

Nissen, T., & Wynn, R. (2014b). The history of the case report: A selective review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Open, 5 (4), 1–5. doi: 10.1177/2054270414523410 .

O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy . New York: Crown Publishing Group.

Payne, S., Field, D., Rolls, L., Hawker, S., & Kerr, C. (2007). Case study research methods in end-of-life care: Reflections on three studies. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 58 (3), 236–245.

Perry, C. (1998). Processes of a case study methodology for postgraduate research in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 32 (9/10), 785–802.

Pinter, H. (1982). A kind of alaska: A premier . Retrieved from http://www.haroldpinter.org/plays/plays_alaska.shtml .

Probst, B. (2015). The eye regards itself: Benefits and challenges of reflexivity in qualitative social work research. Social Work Research Social Work Research , 39 (1), 37–48.

Romano, C. (2015). Freud and the Dora case: A promise betrayed . London: Karnac Books.

Ruddin, L. P. (2006). You can generalize stupid! Social scientists, Bent Flyvbjerg, and case study methodology. Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (4), 797–812.

Sacks, O. (1970). The man who mistook his wife for a hat . New York: Touchstone.

Sacks, O. (1995). An anthropologist on mars: Seven paradoxical tales . New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Sacks, O. (2015). On the move: A life . New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Safran, J. D. (2009). Clinical and empirical issues: Disagreements and agreements. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 57 (5), 1043–1069.

Sampson, R. J. (2010). Gold standard myths: Observations on the experimental turn in quantitative criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26 (4), 489–500.

Sayer, A. (2011). Why things matter to people: Social science, values and ethical life . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shaw, E. (2013). Sacred cows and sleeping dogs: Confidentiality: Not as straightforward as we would have thought. Psychotherapy in Australia, 19 (4), 65–66.

Sieck, B. C. (2012). Obtaining clinical writing informed consent versus using client disguise and recommendations for practice. Psychotherapy, 49 (1), 3–11.

Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1), 20–24.

Skocpol, T., & Sommers, M. (1980). The uses of comparative theory in macrosocial inquiry. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 22 (2), 174–197.

Smith, C. (2011). What is a person?: Rethinking humanity, social life, and the moral good from the personup . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sperry, L., & Pies, R. (2010). Writing about clients: Ethical considerations and options. Counseling and Values, 54 (2), 88–102.

Steinmetz, G. (2004). Odious comparisons: Incommensurability, the case study, and “small N’s” in sociology. Sociological Theory, 22 (3), 371–400.

Steinmetz, G. (2005). The politics of method in the human. In G. Steinmetz (Ed.), Sciences . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Sutherland, E. (2016). The case study in telecommunications policy research. Info, 18 (1), 16–30.

Taylor, C., & White, S. (2001). Knowledge, truth and reflexivity: The problem of judgement in social work. Journal of social work , 1 (1), 37–59.

Taylor, C., & White, S. (2006). Knowledge and reasoning in social work: Educating for humane judgement. British Journal of Social Work , 36 (6), 937–954.

Thacher, D. (2006). The Normative Case Study 1. American journal of sociology , 111 (6), 1631–1676.

Tice, K. W. (1998). Tales of wayward girls and immoral women: Case records and the professionalization of social work . Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Tsang, E. W. (2014). Case studies and generalization in information systems research: A critical realist perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 23 (2), 174–186.

Tsang, E. W. (2014). Generalizing from research findings: The merits of case studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16 (4), 369–383.

Tufekci, Z. (2015). Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and Google: Emergent challenges of computational agency. Journal on Telecommunication, 13 , 203–218.

Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research: A guide for organizational and social research . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Van Haselen, R. A. (2015). Towards improving the reporting quality of clinical case reports in complementary medicine: Assessing and illustrating the need for guideline development. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 23 (2), 141–148.

Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. (2011). Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (5), 740–762.

Wilgus, J., & Wilgus, B. (2009). Face to face with Phineas Gage. Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, 18 (3), 340–345.

Willemsen, J., Cornelis, S., Geerardyn, F. M., Desmet, M., Meganck, R., Inslegers, R., & Cauwe, J. M. (2015). Theoretical pluralism in psychoanalytic case studies. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 , 1466

Willemsen, J., Della Rosa, E., & Kegerreis, S. (2017). Clinical case studies in psychoanalytic and psychodynamic treatment. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 , 1–7. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00108 .

Winship, G. (2007). The ethics of reflective research in single case study inquiry. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 43 (4), 174–182.

Wolpert, L., & Fonagy, P. (2009). There is no place for the psychoanalytic case report in the British Journal of Psychiatry. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 195 , 483–487.

Woolcock, M. (2013). Using case studies to explore the external validity of ‘complex’ development interventions. Evaluation, 19 (3), 229–248.

Wynn, D. Jr., & Williams, C. K. (2012). Principles for conducting critical realist case study research in information systems. Mis Quarterly, 36 (3), 787–810.

Yang, D. D. (2006). Empirical social inquiry and models of causal inference. The New England Journal of Political Science, 2 (1), 51–88.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Rutgers School of Social Work, New Brunswick, USA

Jeffrey Longhofer & Jerry Floersch

DSW Program, Rutgers School of Social Work, New Brunswick, USA

Eric Hartmann

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey Longhofer .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Longhofer, J., Floersch, J. & Hartmann, E. A Case for the Case Study: How and Why They Matter. Clin Soc Work J 45 , 189–200 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-017-0631-8

Download citation

Published : 06 June 2017

Issue Date : September 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-017-0631-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Case study research
• Critical realism
• Psychoanaltyic case study
• Social work clinical research
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

A case for case studies in social work research

• Social Work (Twin Cities)

Research output : Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Case study research is a good fit with many forms of social work practice. Although disparaged as uncontrolled and uninterpretable, the case study has great potential for building social work knowledge for assessment, intervention, and outcome. This article defines case study research, presents guidelines for evaluating case studies, and shows the relevance of case studies to social work research. Guidelines for evaluation also are guidelines for developing and interpreting case studies that will meet the rigorous demands of scientific research and be useful to social work practitioners. © 1994 The National Association of Social Workers, Inc.

Publisher link

• 10.1093/sw/39.4.371

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus
• Link to citation list in Scopus

Fingerprint

• Social Work Research Keyphrases 100%
• Case Study Research Keyphrases 100%
• Work Research Social Sciences 100%
• Case Study Social Sciences 100%
• Social Work Practice Keyphrases 50%
• Social Work Practitioners Keyphrases 50%
• Assessment Intervention Keyphrases 50%
• National Association of Social Workers Keyphrases 50%

T1 - A case for case studies in social work research

AU - Gilgun, Jane F.

N2 - Case study research is a good fit with many forms of social work practice. Although disparaged as uncontrolled and uninterpretable, the case study has great potential for building social work knowledge for assessment, intervention, and outcome. This article defines case study research, presents guidelines for evaluating case studies, and shows the relevance of case studies to social work research. Guidelines for evaluation also are guidelines for developing and interpreting case studies that will meet the rigorous demands of scientific research and be useful to social work practitioners. © 1994 The National Association of Social Workers, Inc.

AB - Case study research is a good fit with many forms of social work practice. Although disparaged as uncontrolled and uninterpretable, the case study has great potential for building social work knowledge for assessment, intervention, and outcome. This article defines case study research, presents guidelines for evaluating case studies, and shows the relevance of case studies to social work research. Guidelines for evaluation also are guidelines for developing and interpreting case studies that will meet the rigorous demands of scientific research and be useful to social work practitioners. © 1994 The National Association of Social Workers, Inc.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84962984565&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84962984565&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/sw/39.4.371

DO - 10.1093/sw/39.4.371

M3 - Article

SN - 0037-8046

JO - Social Work

JF - Social Work

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

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

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

How to Approach Writing a Case Study Research Paper

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

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

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

I.  Introduction

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

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

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

II.  Literature Review

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

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

III.  Method

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV.  Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V.  Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Problems to Avoid

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

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

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

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

Writing Tip

At Least Five Misconceptions about Case Study Research

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Next: Writing a Field Report >>
• Last Updated: May 31, 2024 1:46 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About The British Journal of Social Work
• About the British Association of Social Workers
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, why the ref matters, the process of assessment, social work and social policy: uoa20 results, the research landscape, research impact, acknowledgements.

• < Previous

Social Work Research in the UK: A View through the Lens of REF2021

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Nicky Stanley, Elaine Sharland, Luke Geoghegan, Ravinder Barn, Alisoun Milne, Judith Phillips, Kirby Swales, Social Work Research in the UK: A View through the Lens of REF2021, The British Journal of Social Work , Volume 53, Issue 8, December 2023, Pages 3546–3565, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcad116

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The Research Assessment Exercise was introduced in 1986 to measure research quality and to determine the allocation of higher education funding. The renamed Research Excellence Framework (REF) has become an important barometer of research capacity and calibre across academic disciplines in UK universities. Based on the expert insights of REF sub-panel members for Unit of Assessment 20 (UOA20), Social Work and Social Policy, this article contributes to understanding of the current state of UK social work research. It documents the process of research quality assessment and reports on the current social work research landscape, including impact. Given its growing vigour, increased engagement with theory and conceptual frameworks, policy and practice and its methodological diversity, it is evident that social work research has achieved considerable consolidation and growth in its activity and knowledge base. Whilst Russell Group and older universities cluster at the top of the REF rankings, this cannot be taken for granted as some newer institutions performed well in REF2021. The article argues that the discipline’s embeddedness in interdisciplinary research, its quest for social justice and its applied nature align well with the REF framework where interdisciplinarity, equality, diversity and inclusion and impact constitute core principles.

The Research Excellence Framework (REF) has significant implications for the quality and vitality of UK research, for academic disciplines, universities, university departments, future research funding and academic careers. The REF usually takes place every six years; the previous exercise was completed in 2014, but REF2021 did not report until June 2022 following delays caused by the pandemic. The assessment process is delivered through panels and sub-panels which take responsibility for Units of Assessment (UOAs). UOA20 covered Social Work and Social Policy and included some, but not all, research in Criminology. Units submitting to the REF were assessed on quality of research outputs, impact (research-generated effects, or benefits beyond academia, demonstrated by case studies) and environment (demonstrated by environment statements and additional data).

Universities and their staff commit significant energy and resources to the REF process and, with the shift to assessing impact introduced for REF2014, social work organisations and policy makers also contribute by providing information and supporting statements to evidence impact. It is therefore essential that all opportunities for learning offered by the REF exercise are captured.

This article has been produced by both academic and impact assessors who served on Sub-panel 20 for REF2021, with the aim of disseminating and reflecting on the picture of social work research and impact provided by REF assessment. We acknowledge that UOA20 does not capture all social work research produced in the UK: numerous research outputs are not submitted for REF assessment and some universities take the strategic decision to return their social work research to another UOA such as Allied Health Professions (UOA3) or Sociology (UOA21). Members of Sub-panel 20 encountered challenges in distinguishing social work from social policy and criminology research: much of the work assessed was interdisciplinary and, for many outputs, disciplinary boundaries appeared porous. Nevertheless, opportunities for painting a picture of social work research across the UK are rare and this account benefits from the fact that some social work assessors contributed to the work of the sub-panel in both 2014 and 2021, enabling us to comment on change and growth.

Research England, part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) which provides government funding for research, managed the REF process and acted on behalf of the Scottish Funding Council, the Higher Education Council for Wales and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland. Formal REF outputs include reports to universities and their departments, ratings tables which are broken down by UOA and by institution, and panel reports which include overviews of the work of individual sub-panels [see REF2021 (2022b) for Sub-panel 20’s overview report]. The REF has strong governance processes so, whilst other organisations may use REF data to produce their own material (e.g. university marketing campaigns or university ‘league tables’ published in the national press) these are not endorsed by the REF. This article represents the views of social work assessors who served on Sub-panel 20; our comments should not be attributed to UKRI or the chairs of Sub-panel 20 or Main Panel C. We offer ‘high-level’ conclusions about the assessment process and the broad profile of social work research and impact that the REF provides. We do not comment on specific outputs, researchers or institutions.

We begin by considering the implications of the REF for universities, their staff and for society more broadly. We then move to explaining the REF process, in particular the workings of Sub-panel 20. We provide accounts of social work research and impact as viewed through the lens of the REF before reaching some conclusions. Discussion of research environment, the third element of REF assessment, is woven through. Each academic assessor on Sub-panel 20 reviewed only the outputs allocated to themself; none saw the full array. Whilst we have been able to draw on Sub-panel 20’s published overview report (REF2021, 2022), REF rules required us to destroy all notes and records. Instead, we have engaged in iterative consultation with all seven social work academic assessors on Sub-panel 20, eliciting their responses to a questionnaire and their comments on successive drafts of this article. This dialogical process has enabled us to paint a rich picture of social work research submitted to Sub-panel 20. Since REF impact case studies, and impact scores for each UOA submission, are in the public domain ( REF2021, 2022a ), we have been able to return directly to these to inform this account.

The REF is a long-established feature of university life in the UK. Whilst Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand and Italy have adopted similar systems for appraising university research, the model is not found in all jurisdictions. Notwithstanding its critics, the REF is widely regarded as a barometer of the health and quality of UK research and a great deal of work goes into preparing submissions. Universities use REF results to market teaching programmes, impress funders, boost staff morale and attract new staff and students. University websites are replete with REF-related quotes on impact, research quality and international and national league tables. The REF results impact on the reputations and status of universities, departments and individual academics.

REF results are used to determine the distribution of the UK Research Councils’ block grants known as quality-related (QR) funds (Research Excellence Grant in Scotland), which provide funding for university research over several years. Once announced, grants can inform universities’ strategic planning, as this funding stream is known and sustained, unlike much other research funding which is allocated through competitive bidding processes. In July 2022, following publication of the REF results, Research England announced that QR funding (in England) would rise from £1.789 billion in 2021–2022 to £1.974 billion in 2022–2023 and 2023–2024, an increase of 10.4 per cent ( University Business, 2022 ). The distribution formula remains unchanged; those who have done proportionally better in REF have received a greater proportion of funding. Where growth has increased, for example in North-East England, universities have benefited ( Coe and Kernohan, 2022 ).

The implications of additional research funding are significant. Research councils and other funders can use REF outcomes as a benchmark of research quality. A key change since REF2014 is that UK access to European Union research funding is restricted following Brexit. Hence, QR funding’s contribution to the total research pot is now greater and may be relied on more heavily. Arguably, the REF process provides accountability for public investment, so that the benefits of university research can be demonstrated to funders and society as a whole. Along with other forms of audit, it creates a performance incentive for universities.

Within universities, REF results are used to inform institutional decisions on resource allocation. Departments that have improved their position in the league tables may expect to be rewarded, whilst departments whose ranking has fallen and who lack other sources of income (particularly teaching income) may be vulnerable to cuts. There are also implications for staff contracts. Following the Stern Review (2016) , in REF2021, all staff with ‘significant responsibility for research’ were entered for REF assessment, a rule change that resulted in 76,132 academics submitting at least one research output, compared with 52,000 in 2014.

Universities developed their own internal systems for assessing the quality of outputs well ahead of the REF submission deadline. In some institutions, staff with ‘significant responsibility’ for research but with outputs either scarce or judged internally to be of low quality may have been ‘invited to consider’ changing to ‘teaching only’ contracts in order to ensure a high-quality submission overall. The REF results do not specify the ratings allocated to individual researchers’ outputs, so offering protection for individual careers. For staff included in the REF, particularly those chosen to submit an impact case study, advantages may include opportunities for promotion or career advancement elsewhere.

The value of the REF is not uncontested. Some critics regard it as emblematic of an expanding audit culture ( Torrance, 2020 ) that ‘constructs an illusion of intellectual excellence and innovation whose true purpose is the neutralization of the university as a centre of independent knowledge creation and learning’ ( O’Regan and Gray, 2018 , p. 533). The University and Colleges Union ( UCU, 2022 ) considered the REF ‘a flawed, bureaucratic nightmare … a drain on the time and resources of university staff, and funding often entrenches structural inequalities’. Others are more qualified in their appraisals. Whilst also criticising the neoliberal underpinnings of the REF, MacDonald (2017) recognises that it can provide institutional space and incentive for impactful research for the public good. Manville et al. (2021) highlight the burden imposed by the REF, but report that over half the academics surveyed claimed it had not significantly influenced their own research. At the other end of the spectrum, Whitfield (2023) expresses confidence in the REF as a mechanism for ensuring accountability for government research funding which has strengthened the quality of UK research.

As suggested by the UCU, QR funding allocations may reinforce some existing inequalities between universities: wealthier institutions tend to perform well and so receive more QR funding. Russell Group (a self-selected group of twenty-four older and better-endowed universities) and older universities cluster at the top of the rankings. But this cannot be taken for granted and in social work and social policy, some newer institutions performed well in 2021.

For the world outside universities, the REF’s emphasis on impact and requirement to produce impact case studies has had the effect of strengthening communication and collaboration between university-based researchers and a wide range of partners from the practice and policy sectors. As an applied discipline, social work research has always maintained close links with research users, but the assessment of impact has sharpened researchers’ interest in how their research is disseminated, taken up and translated into social change. With research translation now a major preoccupation for academia, university research is increasingly likely to be engaging in ongoing dialogue with a variety of stakeholders and contributing to local, regional and national priorities.

UOA20 was one of twelve sub-panels that sat under REF2021’s Main Panel C which covered the social sciences. This structure allowed for planning, calibration and management of the task of assessing very large amounts of material to be carried out across disciplines, with the aim of achieving consistency and adherence to common practices and standards. Chairs were appointed to the REF panels and sub-panels following open advertisement and interviews and sub-panel members were nominated by learned bodies and other associations such as the Association of Professors of Social Work, Joint Social Work Education Council, the British Association of Social Work, the British Society of Gerontology and some of the major charities. Impact assessors and research users were similarly nominated and came from a range of practice, policy, research and knowledge transfer organisations. Sub-panel members were appointed in stages, allowing sub-panels to ensure they included a wide range of expertise and were sufficiently diverse and representative. The REF’s own analysis of appointments to all REF2021 sub-panels found significantly increased representativeness since 2014 ( REF2021/01, 2021 ). Sub-panel 20 included twenty-six academic assessors (eight of whom were predominantly social work academics), three research users, six impact assessors, one panel adviser and one panel secretary. Twenty-four sub-panel members (63 per cent) were women and fourteen (37 per cent) were men. Twenty-one per cent of the sub-panel were from Black and Minoritised ethnic communities. Institutions from each of the UK’s four nations were represented as were Russell Group and post-1992 universities (approximately seventy-eight institutions, mostly former polytechnics granted university status by the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act).

Sub-panel 20 met between November 2019 and March 2022. Restrictions imposed by the pandemic meant that most meetings were held online, but this did not seem to impede communication or decision-making. Planning and preparation started early and sub-panel members were able to contribute to developing guidance for submitting units—this was deliberately broad and inclusive reflecting the disciplines’ porous boundaries—planning workload management and working methods. All sub-panel members undertook unconscious bias training and participated in calibration exercises designed to ensure consistency in grading all components of submissions. In keeping with REF guidance ( REF2021a, 2019 ) regarding the reliability of citation data, especially in applied research fields, Sub-panel 20 made no use of bibliographic metrics to inform the assessment of outputs, relying solely on expert review. A grading process underpinned by assessor commentary was adopted with continuous monitoring of assessors’ rating patterns and particular attention given to borderline grades.

In total, seventy-six universities submitted research to sub-panel 20 – 15 more than in REF2014. Of these, 39.5 per cent were pre-1992 and 60.5 per cent were post-1992 universities. Fourteen institutions submitted to UOA20 for the first time, indicating expansion of research in these fields.

Likewise, the numbers of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff with significant responsibility for research who were returned to UOA20 increased by 61.8 per cent from REF2014. This growth is in part attributable to changes in REF procedures: REF2014 did not require all such staff to be submitted, whereas REF2021 did. However, it also indicates the vigour of the UOA20 disciplines. The sub-panel received a total of 5,158 outputs for review, an increase of 8 per cent from REF2014.

All outputs were reviewed by two assessors. One took responsibility for reviewing all outputs for an institution, so providing a full overview of that university’s unit of submission. The second was allocated on the basis of their expertise. A high number of interdisciplinary outputs was assessed and where expertise was felt to be lacking, in consultation with the sub-panel’s interdisciplinary adviser, outputs were cross-referred to appropriate sub-panels. Where gradings differed substantially, paired assessors discussed them and reached a joint decision. Very occasionally, a third assessor was brought in. The same approach was employed to assess impact case studies which were assessed jointly by an impact assessor and the academic assessor with responsibility for the submitting institution. Environment statements were assessed in larger groups of three including the allocated institutional assessor and two other panel members. The overall quality profile for each unit of submission to the REF2021 was calculated using a formula weighting of 60 per cent for outputs, 25 per cent for impact and 15 per cent for environment.

As noted above, it was not always easy to allocate outputs to one specific discipline. However, if the number of outputs allocated to a second assessor with social work expertise is used as a crude indicator of discipline, Sub-panel 20 assessed approximately 1,400 outputs for social work, 2,220 for social policy and 1,130 for criminology. Social work outputs therefore constituted approximately 30 per cent of the work assessed. In total, 225 impact case studies were assessed across all three disciplines, up from 190 in 2014. About one-third of these were predominantly social work, although this categorisation is very approximate since many were multidisciplinary.

Table 1 shows the final profiles for outputs, impact and environment across the whole UOA. As in REF2014, the UOA as a whole performed particularly well in respect of impact with over three-quarters of case studies rated 3* (internationally excellent) or 4* (world-leading). Similarly, three-quarters of the outputs assessed were rated 3* or 4*. Direct comparison between REF2021 and REF2014 results is difficult, due to changed rules regarding the ratio of outputs to returned FTE staff, and because REF2021 covered seven years (1 January 2014–31 December 2020) whilst REF2014 covered six years (January 2008–December 2013). Nonetheless, these results represent a slight improvement on those of REF2014. Of the 4,844 outputs submitted to the sub-panel, 577 (12 per cent) were attributed to early career researchers, signalling the continued growth and sustainability of the research community. Similarly, the environment statements submitted to Sub-panel 20 reported a 20.9 per cent increase in PhD completions over the REF period, as seen in Table 2 .

Quality profiles (FTE weighted) for UOA20, REF2021

Source : REF2021 (2022b , p. 126).

UoA20 all doctoral awards by academic year, REF2021

Source : REF2021 (2022b , p. 136).

Other indicators of growth found across the sub-panel included an average increase in universities’ social work and social policy research funding of £4.2 million per annum across the REF period.

Following changes in the REF guidance, the environment statements reported on equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) issues more fully than in REF2014. The stronger statements assessed provided detail on progress made since REF2014 regarding under-representation of staff with protected characteristics (i.e. age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation as defined by the 2010 Equality Act).

Significant progress towards, or the achievement of, key EDI benchmarks was found in some cases, although this tended to be better evidenced for gender than ethnicity or other protected characteristics. However, there were some examples of positive practice in relation to research students: for instance, one institution had targeted PhD studentships on Black, Asian and Minoritised students.

The final ranking table for UOA20 was not dissimilar to that for REF2014, with the top end dominated by the better-resourced Russell Group and older universities. However, it was notable that more post-1992 institutions featured in the top thirty universities for social work and social policy than in 2014, indicating the increasing strength of some of these departments. As a group, institutions submitting to UOA20 for the first time produced a generally lower profile than the overall sub-panel profile: success in the REF is, to some extent, shaped by experience in and the resource devoted to crafting the submission. However, these new submissions displayed some key strengths and demonstrated expansion of the disciplines.

Turning to UK social work outputs submitted to Sub-panel 20, the overarching impression is that social work has continued to grow in maturity, sophistication and confidence as a research discipline and interdisciplinary field. Increased breadth and diversity were demonstrated in the range of contemporary issues explored and approaches taken. Assessors saw examples of outstanding excellence amongst outputs based on applied and empirical, conceptual and literature-based research. Where substantive themes or methodologies were familiar from REF2014, these were often treated with greater refinement and criticality. There were also strong signs that substantial funder investment can bear fruit in research of world-leading quality. Whilst centres of excellence in particular sub-fields produced some outstanding outputs, excellent research and 4* outputs were identified in all submitting units, including those newly submitting to the REF.

Output quality assessment

The three criteria used for appraising the quality of outputs were ‘originality, significance and rigour’ (see Box 1 ).

The overall quality of each output was judged according to the following starred level ratings:

Four star: quality that is world leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour.

Three star: quality that is internationally excellent in terms of originality, significance and rigour but which falls short of the highest standards of excellence.

Two star: quality that is recognised internationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour.

One star: quality that is recognised nationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour.

Unclassified: outputs that fall below the quality levels described above or do not meet the definition of research used for the REF.

Demonstrating research quality

Whilst claims to originality, significance and rigour were commonly flagged in outputs assessed, their validity needed to be demonstrated and not merely asserted. Originality was strongest where, for example, a new model was introduced for conceptualising or responding to a familiar social work issue or new questions explored in uncharted territory. It was less evident where a tried and tested approach was being replicated or there was significant overlap between outputs within the same submission. Significance could be both under-sold, commonly as an afterthought, or over-sold, say by drawing far-reaching implications from an exploratory study. Conversely, compelling significance could be demonstrated where clear contributions to knowledge, implications for law, policy, practice and/or research were well integrated. We discuss demonstration of rigour in more detail below. However, we saw instances where limited funding or tight deadlines appeared to have led to hurriedly written reports or lack of fit between funder agendas and real-world practicalities (such as challenges with implementing initiatives to be evaluated) compromised the suitability and effectiveness of the research approach taken.

Topics examined

As in REF2014, there was a preponderance of social work research on children and families, particularly child safeguarding, looked after children and young people and care leavers. In contrast, there was less attention to early help and support (services provided for children and families as soon as a problem appears). Some outputs highlighted the socio-economic, political and cultural determinants of challenges these children and families face, others focused on their individual and immediate characteristics and contexts. Many outputs discussed evaluation of new, sometimes innovative, practice or policy initiatives and their impacts; others explored pathways through and outcomes from services-as-usual. A prominent theme was child protection threshold decision-making, with relationship-based and trauma-informed practice, online harms and child trafficking more recently emerging themes.

Amongst outputs addressing social work and social care with adults and older people, established foci on ageing and dementia, mental health, disabilities, care and carers, and palliative or end-of-life care, were complemented by growth in attention to sexuality and LGBTQ+ groups, and gerotechnology. Other themes included isolation and loneliness, work and retirement and cultural and environmental gerontology.

Several research themes cross-cut service user groups. Prominent amongst them was interpersonal violence against children, women and older people. Cross-cutting themes were also commonly interdisciplinary and spoke to ‘big’ contemporary social work and policy challenges: inequalities, poverty and social exclusion, migration and digital transformation. For example, there was clear growth in outputs addressing social work with refugees, asylum seekers and migrants; with Black and Minoritised communities and on digital technologies—their opportunities and risks, impacts on practice and technological value as research tools. Intergenerational and spatial perspectives were also foregrounded.

As in REF2014, an array of outputs considered the social work profession: its governance and regulation; professional identity, ethics and values; organisational cultures; supervision and support; social workers’ well-being and professional education.

Use of theory and conceptual frameworks

There was wide variation in the extent to which outputs engaged with theory or concepts. A minority were written expressly to use a particular theoretical or conceptual lens to scrutinise social work issues. Elsewhere, variable recourse to theory could reflect significant differences in funding level and requirements. Outputs from government- or agency-commissioned research were more often targeted towards practice or policy application than theorisation. In contrast, larger-scale research council or charity funding could provide the platform for outputs whose sophisticated application of theory significantly enhanced their contributions to knowledge as well as practice and policy.

Relatively, few social work outputs introduced entirely original theories or concepts, but a considerable number drew on theory from diverse disciplines. Some familiar theories—such as attachment or ecological theories, the social model of disability or specific practice theories—were applied with increased criticality and nuance. Others were more newly applied to social work issues, including theories of social justice and rights applied to safeguarding; post-colonial theory and concepts of social exclusion, cultural competence or empowerment applied to work with minority communities and migrants; organisational learning and systems theories applied to innovation and development and psychosocial and communication theories applied to relationship-based practice.

Scale and ambition

Many social work outputs were based on small scale, local and qualitative research, as is typical within the discipline. These bear witness both to high levels of local stakeholder partnership that underpin their funding, focus and design, and to alignment with person-centred social work values and engagement with lived experience. However, their preponderance may also reflect low funding, traditional lack of UK social work research capacity or appetite for quantitative research, and paucity of robust, suitable large-scale datasets.

Nonetheless, there was encouraging evidence that the scope and scale of the UK social work research landscape is shifting. Some excellent collaborative international and comparative research addressed social work concerns globally (including in the Global South). There were also some outstanding outputs from large, well-funded, multi-method and/or longitudinal projects. Where there was substantial external funding from major national research funders, there was scope and scale for ground-breaking research and world-leading outputs. Such projects could also offer capacity development, with early career researchers on occasion leading authorship of excellent publications.

Methodologies and methods

We noted the increasing range, diversity and sophistication of methodologies and methods used. Empirical research outputs ranged from: small scale, qualitative studies to longitudinal analyses of large datasets and multi-method evaluations to in-depth ethnographies and cross-country comparisons to local action research projects. Naturally, methodological quality varied: some methods were applied inappropriately; others were poorly applied or were too thinly explained. Assessors saw plentiful use of tried and tested methods such as interviews and focus groups, with relatively fewer novel methods developed and well demonstrated. Despite this, the growth in qualitative and quantitative methodological range, competence and confidence was impressive.

First, it was clear that qualitative research strengths already demonstrated in REF2014 had developed further, including increased use of innovative and creative—such as visual, digital and arts-based—methods. There was also some excellent ethnographic research, at times making sophisticated use of multiple methods to explore lived experience and practice in diverse settings. UK social work research has long prioritised user voice and co-production—arguably as a path-leader in social and health sciences. Assessors observed participatory research continuing to flourish, through co-produced work with people with dementia, mental health needs and physical impairments, with LGBTQ+ and excluded communities and with vulnerable children and young people. The highest quality studies reflected critically upon the complexity of service users’ engagement with services and research, deploying methods to enable meaningful participation across all research stages.

Second, enhanced methodological range and sophistication were demonstrated in areas considered weaker in social work research submitted to REF2014. These included: sound use of economic analysis to evaluate cost-effectiveness/benefits of initiatives; rigorous randomised-controlled trials or quasi-experiments examining the effectiveness of interventions and digital technology used for large-scale surveys. The growth and improved rigour of quantitative and longitudinal research was especially striking, featuring amongst others robust multivariate analysis of large administrative or cohort/panel datasets that could afford, at scale, cross-sectional evidence of patterns of needs and services, or longitudinal evidence of outcomes over time. Large-scale and experimental quantitative methods could also be deployed to excellent effect within mixed-method designs. For example, mixed methods randomised-controlled trials could shed light on the contexts and mechanisms of change that contributed to outcomes; qualitative interviews with service users or providers could make sense of patterns of need, service use or outcomes identified through large data analysis.

What is impact?

Research impact has become an increasingly important element in REF assessment: its contribution to the overall rating of submissions increased from 20 per cent in REF2014 to 25 per cent in REF2021. Impact was reported mainly in the format of impact case studies which were expected to provide a clear, coherent narrative that included an account of which audiences, constituencies, groups, organisations, places, services or sectors had benefited, been influenced or been acted upon as a consequence of research.

REF2021 defined impact as an ‘effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia’ ( REF2021, 2019a , p. 68). So any positive impact beyond an institution’s own teaching and advancement of academic knowledge was within scope of this broad definition.

Impact was understood to include, but was not limited to, an effect on, change or benefit to:

the activity, attitude, awareness, behaviour, capacity, opportunity, performance, policy, practice, process or understanding;

of an audience, beneficiary, community, constituency, organisation or individuals;

in any geographic location whether locally, regionally, nationally or internationally ( REF2021, 2019a , p. 90).

The guidance also acknowledged additional impacts arising from research, such as holding public or private bodies to account, which may have resulted in a proposed change not taking place, or made a contribution to critical public debate.

Assessors considered whether the claims made for impact were supported by evidence and indicators. They also examined the coherence and clarity of narratives describing the sequence of activities and events leading to underpinning research being acted upon. This ‘pathway to impact’ proved to be a key element in the assessment. REF documentation acknowledged ‘there are multiple and diverse pathways through which research achieves impact’; moreover, the relationship between research and impact can be ‘indirect or non-linear’ and can be ‘foreseen or unforeseen’. Impact may also be achieved by ‘individuals alone, through inter-institutional groups, to groups including both academic and non-academic participants’ ( REF2021, 2019b , p. 63).

The two key components of impact were articulated in REF guidance as

‘Reach’ is understood as the extent and/or diversity of the beneficiaries of the impact. Reach is defined and assessed in terms of the extent to which the potential constituencies, number or groups of beneficiaries have been reached ( REF2021, 2019a , p. 52). So, this is designed to distinguish between, for example, a study that had an impact on a small number of people in one geographical area, with another that could have affected policy impacting on a whole country. Having said that, it is not designed to be assessed in purely geographic terms, nor in terms of absolute numbers of beneficiaries.

‘Significance’ is understood as the degree to which the impact has enabled, enriched, influenced, informed or changed the performance, policies, practices, products, services, understanding, awareness or well-being of the beneficiaries ( REF2021, 2019a , p. 52). Therefore, this is designed to capture something about the scale and importance of the claimed impact.

Assessors produced an overall judgement about reach and significance of impacts, rather than assessing each criterion separately, and neither was privileged over the other.

Quality and range of impacts

Over three-quarters of the impact case studies considered as predominantly social work were judged to have achieved impact of outstanding or very considerable reach and significance. Many were interdisciplinary and high levels of impact were achieved at local, regional, national and international levels.

Amongst the wide variety of social work case studies, some were based on the work of one or two researchers whilst others were collaborative. Some were founded on one-off studies, others on a long-term commitment to one research area, such as adoption practice. They demonstrated a wide range of practice and policy outcomes, with impact reaching practitioners, policy makers, local authorities, membership organisations, voluntary sector groups, service users, excluded groups and communities.

The following comprise the main types of impact demonstrated:

Government policy including legislation, statutory guidance—such as changing formal legislation about rules on contact.

Regulation—such as the inclusion of new criteria into the inspection frameworks used by Ofsted.

Practices and the way in people approach their work—such as developing new ‘models’ of social work practice by delivering training programmes across a number of local authorities or professional groups.

Products, resources and technologies—such as new toolkits for social workers or managers of residential homes, and physical objects for interacting with children.

Increased understanding, including public or professional awareness—such as identifying positive benefits of aspects of the care system traditionally seen as problematic.

Increased well-being, engagement, safety or health of service users—such as helping people who have experienced abuse overcome feelings of stigma and disempowerment through a process of ethical engagement in the research and policy-making process.

Excellence was found across the different impact types and beneficiaries, including examples of challenging the status quo and influencing the terms of debate. However, some case studies seemed to confuse dissemination with impact by, for example, simply citing numbers of downloads or participants attending training sessions, rather than specifying what had actually changed. Impact could also be over-claimed, such as where contributions affected teaching within but not beyond the submitting institution, or changed practice appeared attributable to the roll-out of an intervention, rather than to the research evaluating it.

Impact was frequently assisted by researchers engaging with key stakeholders and planning for impact from the outset. Research council and universities’ own Impact Acceleration funding had supported ongoing relationships with key stakeholders in a number of cases, and including stakeholder representatives in research teams was also effective. Participation in formal governance processes, such as responses to consultations and attendance at select committees were important ways to influence policy makers, and using a range of digital technologies, including communication campaigns, could amplify impact wider. The strongest case studies were able to show how research findings had been taken on by users in ways that shifted practices and/or policy agendas beyond original expectations. However, sub-panel members also noted some challenges in providing evidence. The links between the research and the impact claimed were not always clear, nor the beneficiaries always easily identifiable.

Notwithstanding some shortcomings, there were notable improvements overall in the presentation of case studies, indicating that planning and support to achieve external impact is becoming more established. There had clearly been a continuing commitment of resources and investment to enable staff to develop and engage in impact activities, reflecting a growing maturity of impact strategies in institutions ( McKenna, 2021 ).

The enhanced contribution of impact to the assessment process in REF2021 played to social work’s strengths. As an applied discipline promoting social change and development ( International Federation of Social Workers, 2014 ), social work research is committed to achieving impact. Increasingly, universities are devoting energy and resources to building collaborations with research users and those who use services; these help to ensure research findings are used to refine policy, improve services, practices and their outcomes and widen public understanding. This approach needs to be adopted consistently across institutions: the relationships that support impact creation require nurturing over time.

There were indications that UK social work research is becoming less parochial and that increased success in capturing funding has produced some rigorous, large-scale studies that address complex, sometimes global, challenges. Social work research appears more confident in wielding a range of methodologies to good effect, whilst maintaining attention to inequalities and power disparities. Funders need to take on board the message that high-quality social work research is delivered when sufficient time and resources are invested.

As university research centres and institutes build their size and expertise, an inevitable tendency towards specialisation may increase the divide between research on children and on adults. However, some research fields, such as mental health, interpersonal violence, inequalities or poverty, may succeed in bridging this space. The REF’s emphasis on interdisciplinarity may also be valuable here.

In terms of social work’s interdisciplinary partnerships, new research partners in fields such as geography, art and design and informatics are being added to the list of traditional research partners. Social work has always been a porous discipline and this has enabled it to forge new partnerships and embrace new thinking and fields of study.

For those assessing social work research, its open boundaries pose challenges in defining and reporting on what is contained within its territory. For REF purposes, social work’s inclusion in a sub-panel shared with social policy and criminology seems appropriate and allowed for interdisciplinary assessment of outputs and impact that were themselves frequently interdisciplinary. However, for a complete picture of UK social work research to emerge from the REF, all social work units would need to submit to UOA20; we would encourage those who returned their research to other UOAs to consider doing so in the next REF.

All outputs and impact case studies submitted to REF2021 are now available on its website ( https://results2021.ref.ac.uk/outputs# and https://results2021.ref.ac.uk ). This offers the fullest record available at present of social work research in the UK. This material could usefully be categorised and reviewed in a more systematic manner than has been possible here to identify current themes, trends and gaps in social work research. Knowledge of which questions or issues are under-researched, for instance, would be helpful.

The REF process is founded on the principle of peer review and this method of assessment is familiar and acceptable to most academics. In REF2021, in line with the recommendations of the Stern Review (2016) , outputs were treated as the product of the submitting unit rather than of individual researchers. This is consistent with the collaborative and team-based approaches common in social work research, and contrasts with a focus on individual researchers that characterises other approaches to identifying excellence in social work research (see e.g. Hodge and Turner, 2023 ). Whilst the cost, burgeoning scale and influence of the REF may attract critics, its increased attention to impact has shifted university strategies in ways that have benefited social work research. Moreover, the REF’s focus on EDI issues has potential to effect change in higher education, and this drive aligns closely with social work research agendas and values.

During the global pandemic, there was considerable media coverage and public interest concerning the experience of marginalised groups, as well as other issues that have traditionally been the focus of social work research but have attracted limited attention from other constituencies. This shift in public discourse offers an opportunity for social work research to reach new and wider audiences and to accelerate the pace of social change. We have described impact as an attainable goal for social work research, whilst noting the importance of support and infrastructure to achieve it. This infrastructure does not need to be confined to universities driven by the competitive ethos of the REF and its rewards. There are strong arguments for establishing wider cross-cutting mechanisms that can bring together researchers, practitioners and policy makers regionally or nationally, to identify how available research can be harnessed to tackle urgent social problems and where new or more knowledge is required to inform the development of solutions. The picture of social work research and impact offered by the REF could provide the basis for the work of such forums.

Social work research in the UK is growing in strength and influence. It is beginning to attract substantial investment from new funders, notably some that previously have focused solely on health research. The REF provides valuable evidence that social work research can achieve the highest levels of excellence and real change when it is adequately resourced. Opening up sources of health funding to social work researchers has the potential to power large and impactful research studies; this may further diversify the nature of social work research itself. Social work research also has the capacity to offer ideas and methods that are attractive to researchers in other disciplines. REF2021 represents an important staging post in the cycle of social work research’s development. The resources and energy invested in the REF exercise should be utilised to explore future directions and themes for the discipline.

Box 1. Research quality criteria

1. Originality: … the extent to which the output makes an important and innovative contribution to understanding and knowledge in the field. Research outputs that demonstrate originality may do one or more of the following: produce and interpret new empirical finding or new material; engage with new and/or complex problems; develop innovative research methods, methodologies and analytical techniques; show imaginative and creative scope; provide new arguments and/or new forms of expression, formal innovations, interpretations and/or insights; collect and engage with novel types of data and/or advance theory or the analysis of doctrine, policy or practice, and new forms of expression.

2. Significance: … the extent to which the work has influenced, or has the capacity to influence, knowledge and scholarly thought, or the development and understanding of policy and/or practice.

3. Rigour: … the extent to which the work demonstrates intellectual coherence and integrity, and adopts robust and appropriate concepts, analyses, sources, theories and/or methodologies.

REF2021 (2019a , pp. 34–35).

The authors would like to acknowledge the work of all members of Sub-panel 20 which has informed this article. We are particularly grateful to colleagues including Nick Ellison (Chair of Sub-Panel 20), Victoria Boelman, Mweyna Chimba, Brid Featherstone, Dez Holmes, Geraldine Macdonald and Sue White whose assessments and reflections on social work research have contributed to this article.

Conflict of interest statement: The paper states clearly that all authors were members of REF sub-panel 20. This makes conflicts of interest explicit for the reader. If a separate conflict of interest statement is required, please use the following: All authors of this paper were members of Sub-Panel 20, Social Work and Social Policy, for REF2021.

Coe J. , Kernohan D. ( 2022 ) ‘Who’s getting more QR funding in England next year?,’ WONKHE, available online at: https://wonkhe.com/blogs/whos-getting-more-qr-funding-in-england-next-year/ (accessed December 6, 2022).

Hodge D. R. , Turner P. R. ( 2023 ) ‘ Who are the top100 contributors to social work journal scholarship? A global study on career impact in the profession? ’, Research on Social Work Practice , 33 ( 3 ), pp. 338 – 49 . Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315221136623 (accessed December 12, 2022).

Google Scholar

International Federation of Social Workers . ( 2014 ) ‘Global definition of social work’, available online at: https://www.ifsw.org/what-is-social-work/global-definition-of-social-work/ (accessed December, 6 2022).

MacDonald R. ( 2017 ) ‘ Impact, research and slaying Zombies: the pressures and possibilities of the REF ’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy , 37 ( 11–12 ), pp. 696 – 710 .

Manville C. , d’Angelo C. , Culora A. , Ryen E. , Cagla Stevenson G. , Weinstein N. , Wilsdon J. , Haddock G. , Guthrie S. ( 2021 ) Understanding Perceptions of the Research Excellence Framework among UK Researchers: The Real-Time REF Review , Santa Monica, CA , RAND Corporation . Available online at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1278-1.html; https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1278-1.html (accessed February 22, 2023).

Google Preview

McKenna H. P. ( 2021 ) Research Impact [Google Scholar], Cham, Switzerland , Springer .

O’Regan J. P. , Gray J. ( 2018 ) ‘ The bureaucratic distortion of academic work: a transdisciplinary analysis of the UK Research Excellence Framework in the age of neoliberalism ’, Language and Intercultural Communication , 18 ( 5 ), pp. 533 – 48 .

REF2021 . ( 2019a ) Panel Criteria and Working Methods for Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021 , Bristol , Department for the Economy, HEFCW, UKRI, Scottish Funding Council .

REF2021 . ( 2019b ) Guidance on Submissions , Bristol , Department for the Economy, HEFCW, UKRI, Scottish Funding Council .

REF2021/01 . ( 2021 ) ‘Analysis of full REF2021 panel membership’, available online at: ref2021_01_analysis-of-full-ref-2021-panel-membership.pdf (accessed September 11, 2022).

REF2021 . ( 2022a ) ‘REF2021 results and submissions’, available online at: https://results2021.ref.ac.uk/impact (accessed September 11, 2022)

REF2021 . ( 2022b ) ‘ Overview report by Main Panel C and Sub-panels 13 to 24 ’, available online at: mp-c-overview-report-final.pdf (ref.ac.uk) (accessed December 6, 2022).

The Stern Report . ( 2016 ) Building on Success and Learning from Experience, an Independent Review of the Research Excellence Framework , London , Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy . Available online at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/541338/ind-16-9-ref-stern-review.pdf (accessed December 12, 2022).

Torrance H. ( 2020 ) ‘ The research excellence framework in the United Kingdom: processes, consequences, and incentives to engage ’, Qualitative Inquiry , 26 ( 7 ), pp. 771 – 9 .

Universities and Colleges Union (UCU ). ( 2022 ) ‘“Utterly hypocritical” for vice-chancellors to celebrate REF results whilst researchers leave the sector’, available online at: https://www.ucu.org.uk/article/12274/Utterly-hypocritical-for-vice-chancellors-to-celebrate-REF-results-whilst-researchers-leave-the-sector (accessed August 29, 2022).

University Business . ( 2022 ) Research England confirms 10% QR funding increase, University Business (accessed September 28, 2022).

Whitfield J. ( 2023 ) ‘A Bit of Everything’, in London Review of Books (45, 2, 19 January), available online at: John Whitfield · A Bit of Everything: REF-Worthy · LRB 19 January 2023 (accessed 22 February 2023).

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1468-263X
• Print ISSN 0045-3102
• Copyright © 2024 British Association of Social Workers
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

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

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

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

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

• Privacy Policy

Home » Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Table of Contents

A case study is a research method that involves an in-depth examination and analysis of a particular phenomenon or case, such as an individual, organization, community, event, or situation.

It is a qualitative research approach that aims to provide a detailed and comprehensive understanding of the case being studied. Case studies typically involve multiple sources of data, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts, which are analyzed using various techniques, such as content analysis, thematic analysis, and grounded theory. The findings of a case study are often used to develop theories, inform policy or practice, or generate new research questions.

Types of Case Study

Types and Methods of Case Study are as follows:

Single-Case Study

A single-case study is an in-depth analysis of a single case. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to understand a specific phenomenon in detail.

For Example , A researcher might conduct a single-case study on a particular individual to understand their experiences with a particular health condition or a specific organization to explore their management practices. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of a single-case study are often used to generate new research questions, develop theories, or inform policy or practice.

Multiple-Case Study

A multiple-case study involves the analysis of several cases that are similar in nature. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to identify similarities and differences between the cases.

For Example, a researcher might conduct a multiple-case study on several companies to explore the factors that contribute to their success or failure. The researcher collects data from each case, compares and contrasts the findings, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as comparative analysis or pattern-matching. The findings of a multiple-case study can be used to develop theories, inform policy or practice, or generate new research questions.

Exploratory Case Study

An exploratory case study is used to explore a new or understudied phenomenon. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to generate hypotheses or theories about the phenomenon.

For Example, a researcher might conduct an exploratory case study on a new technology to understand its potential impact on society. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as grounded theory or content analysis. The findings of an exploratory case study can be used to generate new research questions, develop theories, or inform policy or practice.

Descriptive Case Study

A descriptive case study is used to describe a particular phenomenon in detail. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to provide a comprehensive account of the phenomenon.

For Example, a researcher might conduct a descriptive case study on a particular community to understand its social and economic characteristics. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of a descriptive case study can be used to inform policy or practice or generate new research questions.

Instrumental Case Study

An instrumental case study is used to understand a particular phenomenon that is instrumental in achieving a particular goal. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to understand the role of the phenomenon in achieving the goal.

For Example, a researcher might conduct an instrumental case study on a particular policy to understand its impact on achieving a particular goal, such as reducing poverty. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of an instrumental case study can be used to inform policy or practice or generate new research questions.

Case Study Data Collection Methods

Here are some common data collection methods for case studies:

Interviews involve asking questions to individuals who have knowledge or experience relevant to the case study. Interviews can be structured (where the same questions are asked to all participants) or unstructured (where the interviewer follows up on the responses with further questions). Interviews can be conducted in person, over the phone, or through video conferencing.

Observations

Observations involve watching and recording the behavior and activities of individuals or groups relevant to the case study. Observations can be participant (where the researcher actively participates in the activities) or non-participant (where the researcher observes from a distance). Observations can be recorded using notes, audio or video recordings, or photographs.

Documents can be used as a source of information for case studies. Documents can include reports, memos, emails, letters, and other written materials related to the case study. Documents can be collected from the case study participants or from public sources.

Surveys involve asking a set of questions to a sample of individuals relevant to the case study. Surveys can be administered in person, over the phone, through mail or email, or online. Surveys can be used to gather information on attitudes, opinions, or behaviors related to the case study.

Artifacts are physical objects relevant to the case study. Artifacts can include tools, equipment, products, or other objects that provide insights into the case study phenomenon.

How to conduct Case Study Research

Conducting a case study research involves several steps that need to be followed to ensure the quality and rigor of the study. Here are the steps to conduct case study research:

• Define the research questions: The first step in conducting a case study research is to define the research questions. The research questions should be specific, measurable, and relevant to the case study phenomenon under investigation.
• Select the case: The next step is to select the case or cases to be studied. The case should be relevant to the research questions and should provide rich and diverse data that can be used to answer the research questions.
• Collect data: Data can be collected using various methods, such as interviews, observations, documents, surveys, and artifacts. The data collection method should be selected based on the research questions and the nature of the case study phenomenon.
• Analyze the data: The data collected from the case study should be analyzed using various techniques, such as content analysis, thematic analysis, or grounded theory. The analysis should be guided by the research questions and should aim to provide insights and conclusions relevant to the research questions.
• Draw conclusions: The conclusions drawn from the case study should be based on the data analysis and should be relevant to the research questions. The conclusions should be supported by evidence and should be clearly stated.
• Validate the findings: The findings of the case study should be validated by reviewing the data and the analysis with participants or other experts in the field. This helps to ensure the validity and reliability of the findings.
• Write the report: The final step is to write the report of the case study research. The report should provide a clear description of the case study phenomenon, the research questions, the data collection methods, the data analysis, the findings, and the conclusions. The report should be written in a clear and concise manner and should follow the guidelines for academic writing.

Examples of Case Study

Here are some examples of case study research:

• The Hawthorne Studies : Conducted between 1924 and 1932, the Hawthorne Studies were a series of case studies conducted by Elton Mayo and his colleagues to examine the impact of work environment on employee productivity. The studies were conducted at the Hawthorne Works plant of the Western Electric Company in Chicago and included interviews, observations, and experiments.
• The Stanford Prison Experiment: Conducted in 1971, the Stanford Prison Experiment was a case study conducted by Philip Zimbardo to examine the psychological effects of power and authority. The study involved simulating a prison environment and assigning participants to the role of guards or prisoners. The study was controversial due to the ethical issues it raised.
• The Challenger Disaster: The Challenger Disaster was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion in 1986. The study included interviews, observations, and analysis of data to identify the technical, organizational, and cultural factors that contributed to the disaster.
• The Enron Scandal: The Enron Scandal was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the Enron Corporation’s bankruptcy in 2001. The study included interviews, analysis of financial data, and review of documents to identify the accounting practices, corporate culture, and ethical issues that led to the company’s downfall.
• The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster : The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the nuclear accident that occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan in 2011. The study included interviews, analysis of data, and review of documents to identify the technical, organizational, and cultural factors that contributed to the disaster.

Application of Case Study

Case studies have a wide range of applications across various fields and industries. Here are some examples:

Business and Management

Case studies are widely used in business and management to examine real-life situations and develop problem-solving skills. Case studies can help students and professionals to develop a deep understanding of business concepts, theories, and best practices.

Case studies are used in healthcare to examine patient care, treatment options, and outcomes. Case studies can help healthcare professionals to develop critical thinking skills, diagnose complex medical conditions, and develop effective treatment plans.

Case studies are used in education to examine teaching and learning practices. Case studies can help educators to develop effective teaching strategies, evaluate student progress, and identify areas for improvement.

Social Sciences

Case studies are widely used in social sciences to examine human behavior, social phenomena, and cultural practices. Case studies can help researchers to develop theories, test hypotheses, and gain insights into complex social issues.

Law and Ethics

Case studies are used in law and ethics to examine legal and ethical dilemmas. Case studies can help lawyers, policymakers, and ethical professionals to develop critical thinking skills, analyze complex cases, and make informed decisions.

Purpose of Case Study

The purpose of a case study is to provide a detailed analysis of a specific phenomenon, issue, or problem in its real-life context. A case study is a qualitative research method that involves the in-depth exploration and analysis of a particular case, which can be an individual, group, organization, event, or community.

The primary purpose of a case study is to generate a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the case, including its history, context, and dynamics. Case studies can help researchers to identify and examine the underlying factors, processes, and mechanisms that contribute to the case and its outcomes. This can help to develop a more accurate and detailed understanding of the case, which can inform future research, practice, or policy.

Case studies can also serve other purposes, including:

• Illustrating a theory or concept: Case studies can be used to illustrate and explain theoretical concepts and frameworks, providing concrete examples of how they can be applied in real-life situations.
• Developing hypotheses: Case studies can help to generate hypotheses about the causal relationships between different factors and outcomes, which can be tested through further research.
• Providing insight into complex issues: Case studies can provide insights into complex and multifaceted issues, which may be difficult to understand through other research methods.
• Informing practice or policy: Case studies can be used to inform practice or policy by identifying best practices, lessons learned, or areas for improvement.

Advantages of Case Study Research

There are several advantages of case study research, including:

• In-depth exploration: Case study research allows for a detailed exploration and analysis of a specific phenomenon, issue, or problem in its real-life context. This can provide a comprehensive understanding of the case and its dynamics, which may not be possible through other research methods.
• Rich data: Case study research can generate rich and detailed data, including qualitative data such as interviews, observations, and documents. This can provide a nuanced understanding of the case and its complexity.
• Holistic perspective: Case study research allows for a holistic perspective of the case, taking into account the various factors, processes, and mechanisms that contribute to the case and its outcomes. This can help to develop a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the case.
• Theory development: Case study research can help to develop and refine theories and concepts by providing empirical evidence and concrete examples of how they can be applied in real-life situations.
• Practical application: Case study research can inform practice or policy by identifying best practices, lessons learned, or areas for improvement.
• Contextualization: Case study research takes into account the specific context in which the case is situated, which can help to understand how the case is influenced by the social, cultural, and historical factors of its environment.

Limitations of Case Study Research

There are several limitations of case study research, including:

• Limited generalizability : Case studies are typically focused on a single case or a small number of cases, which limits the generalizability of the findings. The unique characteristics of the case may not be applicable to other contexts or populations, which may limit the external validity of the research.
• Biased sampling: Case studies may rely on purposive or convenience sampling, which can introduce bias into the sample selection process. This may limit the representativeness of the sample and the generalizability of the findings.
• Subjectivity: Case studies rely on the interpretation of the researcher, which can introduce subjectivity into the analysis. The researcher’s own biases, assumptions, and perspectives may influence the findings, which may limit the objectivity of the research.
• Limited control: Case studies are typically conducted in naturalistic settings, which limits the control that the researcher has over the environment and the variables being studied. This may limit the ability to establish causal relationships between variables.
• Time-consuming: Case studies can be time-consuming to conduct, as they typically involve a detailed exploration and analysis of a specific case. This may limit the feasibility of conducting multiple case studies or conducting case studies in a timely manner.
• Resource-intensive: Case studies may require significant resources, including time, funding, and expertise. This may limit the ability of researchers to conduct case studies in resource-constrained settings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Questionnaire – Definition, Types, and Examples

Observational Research – Methods and Guide

Quantitative Research – Methods, Types and...

Qualitative Research Methods

Explanatory Research – Types, Methods, Guide

Survey Research – Types, Methods, Examples

Case Study Research Method in Psychology

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

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

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

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

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

On This Page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Famous Case Studies

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

Clinical Case Studies

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

Child Psychology Case Studies

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

Types of Case Studies

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

Where Do You Find Data for a Case Study?

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

1. Primary sources

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

2. Secondary sources

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

3. Archival records

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

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

4. Organizational records

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

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

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

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

How do I Write a Case Study in Psychology?

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

1. Introduction

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

2. Case Presentation

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

3. Management and Outcome

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

4. Discussion

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

5. Additional Items

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limitations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further Information

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

Related Articles

Research Methodology

Qualitative Data Coding

What Is a Focus Group?

Cross-Cultural Research Methodology In Psychology

What Is Internal Validity In Research?

Research Methodology , Statistics

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

Criterion Validity: Definition & Examples

Community-Engaged Research Initiative

• Advisory Board
• What is Community-Engaged Research?
• Annual Report
• Stay In Touch
• CERi awards
• Graduate Fellowship Program
• Community-Engaged Research Funding Program
• Community Scholars Program
• Researchers-in-Residence
• Research Assistant - Affordability and Climate with BC Climate Emergency Campaign
• Research Assistant - Global Climate Equity Campaign
• Research Assistant - East Hastings Corridor Community Economic Development
• Research Assistant - DIY Air Cleaner Project
• 312 Main Research Shop
• Introductory Resources
• Ethics of CER
• CER Network

Supporting those harmed by sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts: A survivor-led and ally-supported research project

Thoughts on CER on a Rainy Spring Day

How the City of North Vancouver encourages neighbourly social connections

• Indigenous salmon stream caretaking: Ancestral lifeways to guide restoration, relationship, rights, and responsibilities
• Past Events

This article is authored by Madeleine Hebert. Madeleine leads housing research projects at Happy Cities, working with professionals and communities to develop solutions to improve social connectedness, resilience, and wellbeing.  This project, a partnership between the  Hey Neighbour Collective ,  Happy Cities , and  SFU Gerontology , promotes collaborative approaches and ensures that spaces provide equitable opportunities for everyone.

Social connections among neighbours are the foundation for happier, more trusting, resilient, and supportive communities. For several years, Hey Neighbour Collective , Happy Cities , and SFU Gerontology have been studying how the design of multi-unit housing influences social connection and wellbeing. 

In 2023, our team embarked on an  ambitious projec t  to translate best practices in sociable design for new buildings into implementable policy solutions. Collaborating with a cohort of six jurisdictions, we conducted a series of cross-sectoral workshops to share evidence-based best practices and co-create policy solutions. Our work highlights that wellbeing-focused housing design policies can lead to effective housing solutions, especially when planners, developers, designers, public health professionals and researchers work together across silos.

An innovative case study: The City of North Vancouver’s Active Design Guidelines

An exemplary case study is the City of North Vancouver’s  Active Design Guidelines , an innovative policy established in 2015. These voluntary guidelines provide developers incentives for incorporating active and social features into new multi-unit developments, aiming to promote physical activity and social interaction. The guidelines recognize that physical activity and social interaction are essential elements to support overall wellbeing and a healthy lifestyle. The Active Design Guidelines offered a valuable opportunity to evaluate an established policy. 

This research comes at an important time, given  new provincial legislation  mandating cities to legalize and build more multi-unit housing. Multi-unit housing is the predominant housing form in the land-constrained City of North Vancouver. Encouraging active and socially connected housing design plays a key role in supporting City Council’s ambition of becoming “the healthiest small city in the world.” 

This research involved post-occupancy evaluations of buildings that followed the Active Design Guidelines and engagement with residents, developers, architects, and City staff to assess the impact and implementation of the policy. The collective findings aim to inform policy updates around active and sociable multi-unit housing design in the City of North Vancouver, contributing to a healthier, more resilient future. 

Successes from the Active Design Guidelines

Our research found that the Active Design Guidelines have garnered widespread support from architects, developers, City staff, and residents. They have facilitated the integration of innovative design features into new developments, resulting in many examples of active design. 

Particularly noteworthy are the successful incorporation of active lobbies, primary stairs, and rooftop amenities. Architects also appreciated the flexibility offered by the guidelines, which enable designers to incorporate elements such as social circulation and creative connections between amenity spaces. Developers have also benefited from the guidelines, appreciating the opportunity to receive floor area exclusions for shared amenities and social, active circulation spaces. 

Collectively, these guidelines have influenced the design of at least 14 buildings within the City of North Vancouver. Although the impact of the voluntary Active Design Guidelines remains relatively small in scale, the research highlights that this policy model can be successful at creating buildings that centre wellbeing. 

Stories of connection, engagement and neighbourliness

Our research gathered data directly from buildings designed to meet the Active Design Guidelines. During the focus group, we heard from 10 residents living in three active design buildings. 

Overall, we heard that residents living in active design buildings in North Vancouver enjoy spending time in and connecting with their neighbours in the shared spaces of their buildings. We encountered inspiring stories of social connection, particularly from two cohousing communities,  Driftwood Village  and Quayside Village, where residents participate in weekly meals and other activities together. As one resident of Driftwood Village Cohousing shared with us: “One of the things I really love about living in Driftwood is that I know all the people that live there, and they know me. And that feels really comforting and comfortable. Also, there’s lots of children on my floor, and there’s a baby next door. I really love that.” 

Gaining a broader perspective on social connection in the City of North Vancouver

To broaden our engagement, we gathered feedback from 601 residents residing in multi-unit housing in the City of North Vancouver through an online survey to help us understand the relationships between social connection, building design and wellbeing in more depth. While our focus was on built environment solutions for fostering better connections, our findings underscored the importance of stable, comfortable, and affordable housing as the foundation for social connection and community building. 

We identified the crucial role of stratas and building operators in implementing the right programming and management policies to intentionally foster community. For example, residents shared the importance of having shared spaces that are always open rather than relying on booking systems. 

Overall, our study supported the notion that multi-unit housing communities can serve as positive catalysts for social connection, strengthening people’s overall sense of belonging and community. For instance, residents who feel more connected to their neighbours often report a stronger sense of belonging and are more inclined to engage with civic or urban issues in their neighbourhood.

Expanding impact: mainstreaming sociable design

The City of North Vancouver offers an important precedent as a local government that has implemented policy to encourage active and social multi-unit housing. Audits of several active design buildings and interviews with developers, architects, and City staff highlighted successful design strategies and opportunities for indoor and outdoor shared spaces. 

Further, many residents engaged through the survey and focus groups expressed appreciation for shared spaces and amenities in their buildings, highlighting the importance of these spaces for wellbeing and social connection—when they are designed to be comfortable, convenient, and easily accessible. The  final report  presents a summary of this research, offering key learnings for municipalities that are looking to implement similar design policies to support social wellbeing in their communities. 

Overall, the study suggests that incentive-based policies can be an effective tool for encouraging high-quality, wellbeing-centred development—creating mutually beneficial outcomes for local government, developers, landlords, and residents. However, these policies—focused specifically on social connection and health in multi-unit housing—remain rare in BC. To support broader adoption among municipalities, Happy Cities and Hey Neighbour Collective are releasing a public toolkit in summer 2024. 

Photos courtesy of  https://happycities.com/projects/north-vancouver-active-design-study

Stay Connected with CERi

We'll keep you engaged with our work, programs and events. you can unsubscribe at anytime..

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