Article

Case Study Methodology Sociological Bulletin

70(1) 94–110, 2021
of Qualitative Research: © 2020 Indian Sociological Society
Reprints and permissions:
in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
Key Attributes and DOI: 10.1177/0038022920970318
journals.sagepub.com/home/sob
Navigating the
Conundrums in Its
Application

Arya Priya1

Abstract
A case study is one of the most commonly used methodologies of social research.
This article attempts to look into the various dimensions of a case study research
strategy, the different epistemological strands which determine the particular
case study type and approach adopted in the field, discusses the factors which
can enhance the effectiveness of a case study research, and the debate surround-
ing the role of a case study in generating theoretical propositions with broader
applicability. The prime focus of this article is to engage the reader with the
intention of stimulating them to contribute their own bit, in order to add greater
novelty and freshness to the methodology of case study.

Keywords
Research design, case study protocol, validity, reliability, generalisation

Introduction
A case study is one of the most extensively used strategies of qualitative social
research. Over the years, its application has expanded by leaps and bounds, and is
now being employed in several disciplines of social science such as sociology,
management, anthropology, psychology and others. This article looks into the
principal features of a case study research methodology, making use of some of
the most relevant and authoritative literature produced on this approach to social

1
Post Graduate Department of Sociology, Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, India.

Corresponding author:
Arya Priya, Post Graduate Department of Sociology, Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University,
Muzaffarpur 842002, Bihar, India.
E-mail: aryapriya18@gmail.com
Priya 95

inquiry. The article makes use of some of the most acclaimed case studies under-
taken while explicating the different aspects of the case study research. An over-
view of the epistemological frameworks which undergird case study research
strategy are presented and weighed up. A major contentious issue in a case study
methodology is whether the findings of the study of a single social unit can be
generalised over the larger population of similar units. The chapter delves into this
rather moot issue in all its dimensions.

Case Study Methodology: Basic Definitions and Concepts

The article dives into the case study research strategy by highlighting some of its
fundamental definitions and aspects.
Yin (2009, p. 18) defines case study as an empirical inquiry which investigates
a phenomenon in its real-life context. In a case study research, multiple methods
of data collection are used, as it involves an in-depth study of a phenomenon. It
must be noted, as highlighted by Yin (2009), a case study is not a method of data
collection, rather is a research strategy or design to study a social unit.
Creswell (2014, p. 241) makes a lucid and comprehensive definition of case
study strategy.

Case Studies are a qualitative design in which the researcher explores in depth a pro-
gram, event, activity, process, or one or more individuals. The case(s) are bound by
time and activity, and researchers collect detailed information using a variety of data
collection procedures over a sustained period of time.

The following key attributes of the case study methodology can be underlined.

1. Case study is a research strategy, and not just a method/technique/process

of data collection.
2. A case study involves a detailed study of the concerned unit of analysis
within its natural setting. A de-contextualised study has no relevance in a
case study research.
3. Since an in-depth study is conducted, a case study research allows the
researcher the leeway to use any method of data collection which suits
their purpose (provided the method is feasible and ethical). Generally, for a
sound, unadulterated and unbiased1 study of the phenomenon under inves-
tigation, several techniques of data collection are used such questionnaire,
survey, in-depth interview, participant/non-participant observation and the
study of documents (whether of books, archival manuscript or audio-visual
records), conversations in natural settings, signs, physical artefacts and so
on.
4. De Vaus (2001, p. 220) posits that the ‘unit of analysis’ in a case study
research can be an individual, a family, a household, a community, an
organisation, an event or even a decision.

Yin (2014) puts forth that a case study can be:

96 Sociological Bulletin 70(1)

1. Descriptive. In a descriptive case study, the purpose is to ‘describe’ a phe-

nomenon in detail in its real-world context. It is used extensively in sociol-
ogy and anthropology.
  Street Corner Society (1943/1999) by William Whyte is considered a
classic example of descriptive case study. It describes the emergent sub-
culture in an Italian slum in an urban neighbourhood in the United States,
called the Cornerville district (a pseudonym). The study describes in detail
key phenomena such as the inter-subjectivity and interpersonal relations
among the residents of the slum, the career advancement of the lower
income youth and their ability (or inability) to break free from the neigh-
bourhood ties (Yin, 2014, p. 7).
2. Explanatory. The study here looks for causal factors to explain a particular
phenomenon. The primary focus of such a case study is to explain ‘why’
and ‘how’ certain conditions come into being, that is, why certain sequence
of events occur or do not occur.
  One of the finest explanatory case studies is Allison and Zelikow’s (1971)
study of the Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962. It is still considered a political science
best seller. The study has a theoretical undergirding and attempts to compare
three competing theories of government action in foreign affairs: rational
actor model, organisational behaviour model, and government politics model.
Using these models, Allison and Zelikow (1971) attempt to explain in detail
certain critical aspects of the crisis such as what made the Soviets to place
the nuclear missiles in Cuba in the first place and why the United States
responded to the Soviet missile deployment in a particular way, that is, with a
blockade and not with an offensive strike (Yin, 2004, pp. 13–24).
3. Exploratory. The purpose here is to study a phenomenon with the intention
of ‘exploring’ or identifying fresh research questions which can be used in
subsequent research studies in an extensive way.
  One of the most well-known exploratory case studies is the one carried
out by Elton Mayo at the Hawthrone plant of the Western Electric Company
at Chicago between 1927 and 1932. This case study is also known as
the Hawthrone experiment. The experiment was carried out by Mayo
in response to the then hugely popular theory of scientific management
spelt out by Taylor in his classic The Principles of Scientific Management
(1911). Mayo’s exploratory case study at Hawthrone plant generated a
number of hypotheses, which got tested in several other case studies, and
led to the development of the famous ‘human relations school’ is manage-
ment studies (Haralambos & Head, 1980, pp. 310–315).

It is highly relevant to discuss here a few points of immense significance regard-

ing the case study research.
First, though the study of individual(s) can be the subject matter of a case study
research, this is not similar to narrative research methodology where a detailed
study of the life of particular individual(s) is made, including their life histo-
ries. In a case study methodology, the focus is on contextual study. This reminds
us of the renowned American sociologist C. Wright Mills’ (1959) conception of
‘sociological imagination’. Sociological imagination exhorts a researcher to study
Priya 97

the individual(s) within their larger historical context. In the words of Mills (ibid.,
p. 6) ‘Sociological imagination enables us to grasp history and biography and the
relation between the two within society’. It makes a researcher conscious of the
interrelations between the ‘personal troubles of milieu’ and the ‘public issue of
social structure’ (ibid., p. 8). Armed with sociological imagination, a case study
researcher can undertake a pellucid analysis of the contextual embedding of social
phenomena or individual(s) or events.
Second, documentary analyses (of manuscripts, audio or visual records, etc.)
are highly significant techniques of data analysis in a case study research strategy.
Here, the case study researcher can derive immense benefit from the develop-
ment in cultural studies (which is growing with great celerity in disciplines such
as literature, sociology and philosophy). According to Storey (2015, pp. 1–2), in
cultural studies, documents, audio or visual records, comics, music, opera and so
on, are referred to as ‘texts’ or the ‘signifying practices’ of a culture. Analyses of
texts are always done within their context. For example, the textual analysis of a
manuscript is not only done keeping in view the socio-cultural milieu in which
the manuscript was produced, but also an attempt is made to deconstruct the text
in terms of the vantage point of the author, such as the ideology of the author or
the power relation between the author and the subjects. A case study researcher
can greatly benefit from the rich and insightful techniques of studying texts
developed in cultural studies.2 Third issue relates specifically to descriptive case
study. Descriptive case studies have high similarity with ethnographic studies.
Both attempt the contextual study of social phenomenon, make use of several
techniques of data collection to have a holistic picture of the phenomenon under
investigation, and both generally study a phenomenon over an extended period
of time to highlight any tangible change which has occurred in the phenomenon
under study (what we generally refer to us as longitudinal study). An important
element of ethnographic study from which descriptive case studies can benefit
greatly is Geertz’s (1973) concept of ‘thick description’. Geertz’s thick descrip-
tion relates to in-depth contextual study of a phenomenon. It involves intensive,
small scale, dense description of social life, through which broader cultural inter-
pretations can be made (Scott, 2014, p. 760).
The following words of Geertz, which he uses for ethnographic study, are
equally relevant for those conducting descriptive case studies:

ethnography is thick description. What the ethnographer is in fact faced with…is a mul-
tiplicity of complex conceptual structures, many of them superimposed upon or knotted
into one another, which are at once strange, irregular, and explicit, and which he must
contrive somehow first to grasp and then to render. And this is true at the most down-
to-earth fieldwork levels of his activity: interviewing informants, observing rituals…
writing his journal. (1973, pp. 9–10)

Longitudinal Case Study

Since the article mentions longitudinal study just above, it is desirable to discuss
it here itself. Bryman (2008) says that case study research generally involves a
longitudinal element. A longitudinal study entails studying the same phenomenon
98 Sociological Bulletin 70(1)

on two or more occasions in order to discern any perceptible change which has
occurred in the phenomenon under investigation over the period of time (ibid.,
p. 695). Bryman (ibid., pp. 57–58) posits that in a case study, a longitudinal study
can be done in the following ways, (a) the researcher many conduct interviews
with the subjects over a lengthy period, which will help her to find out any change
in the unit under analysis over such period of the interview, (b) a researcher may
bring longitudinal element into her study by immersing herself into archival data
and records, or previous interviews carried out by some other researcher and
(c) the researcher may come back to the case being studied at a later stage to look
for trends and changes.
A classic example of longitudinal case study is the study of Middletown
(a mid-sized city in Midwestern United States) by Lynd and Lynd (1957), once
in mid-1920s and again in mid-1930s. Though it is basically a descriptive case
study, the primary focus of the authors was the transition from an agricultural
to an industrial economy, which occurred in most mid-sized American cities in
the 1920s. The authors were interested in studying the changes Middletown was
witnessing due to industrialisation. The authors stayed there in the city for around
eighteen months in the mid-1920s, immersing themselves into the social life of the
city as participant observers, and produced a comprehensive and detailed study of
the cultural life of Middletown and its transitioning under the impact of industri-
alisation. The study was so much appreciated and well received that the authors
returned to Middletown again in the mid-1930s to study further changes in the
socio-cultural life of the city, eventually producing a follow-up book of equal
commendation, named Middletown in Transition (1965) (Yin, 2004, pp. 13–32).

Case Study Research Design

Ragin (1994, p. 191) defines a research design as,

Research design is a plan for collecting and analysing evidence that will make it pos-
sible for the investigator to answer whatever question he or she has posed. The design
of an investigation touches all aspects of the research, from the minute details of data
collection to the selection of the techniques of data collection.

Yin (2014, p. 28) calls case study research design a ‘craftwork’. This is rightly so,
because how rigorous and sharp the design is constructed ultimately determines
the efficacy, reliability and validity3 of the final case study outcome. Research
design is the key that unlocks before the both the researcher and the audience all
the primary elements of the research—the purpose of the research, the research
questions, the type of case study research to be carried out, the sampling method
to be adopted, the sample size, the techniques of data collection to be adopted and
the analysis and presentation of the data and research findings. Further, a good
research design channelises the energy and time of the researcher in the right
direction, and keeps them focussed throughout the research.
The key elements of a case study design are: (a) purpose of study; (b) type
of research undertaken depending on the purpose—exploratory, explanatory or
Priya 99

descriptive; (c) research questions; (d) study of single case or multiple cases
depending upon the purpose, research questions and resource availability in terms
of manpower, money and time; (e) epistemological underpinnings determining
the direction of the case study in the field; (f) literature review; (g) sampling; (h)
methods of data collection adopted; (i) analysis of data; and (j) presentation of
analysed data in an effective and coherent way which can enhance our knowledge.
Yin (2009) says that ‘research questions’ constitute the bedrock of a case
study research design, because they will ultimately determine all the course of
actions the researcher will adopt in the fieldwork. The research question should
be focussed and rigorously determined. The sharpness with which the research
questions are set also determines the actual unit of analysis in the study.
A classic case study enumerating how a focused formation of questions can
enhance the effectiveness of the case study is the Allison and Zelikow’s (1971)
study of Cuban missile crisis (discussed earlier). The whole case study of Allison
and Zelikow is geared towards finding answers to four pin-pointed questions: (a)
Why did the Soviets placed the strategic offensive missiles in Cuba? (b) Why did
the United States respond with a naval quarantine of Soviet shipments to Cuba?
(c) Why were the missiles withdrawn from by the Soviet? and (d) What lessons the
world can learn from the Cuban stand-off? Because of well-developed research
questions, they were able to devise a potent design, leading to a highly productive
and weighty case study, which still draws commendation for its crispness.
Sampling4 is extremely important in case study, because as Miles and Huberman
(1994) say ‘you cannot study everyone everywhere doing everything’. They posit
that in a qualitative sample plan, the following factors should be considered:
(a) Is the sampling relevant to one’s conceptual frame and research questions?
(b) Can reliable descriptions or explanations be produced using the sampling
plan selected? (c) Is the sampling plan feasible, in terms of time, money, man-
power, and access to people under study? and (d) Is the sampling plan effective
enough for its findings to be generalisable to the entire universe of population
from which the sample is obtained?
Our purpose of study and our research questions greatly determine our sam-
pling plan. For instance, in the Street Corner Society (1943/1999) study by Whyte
(adumbrated earlier), the object of study was the subculture among the Italian
slum dwellers in an urban neighbourhood. Since, the subjects under study were the
underprivileged Italian slum dwellers, the sampling plan was purposing and snow-
ball (Yin, 2004). Purposive sampling is one done in a deliberate way, always with
some focus or purpose in mind (Punch, 2005, p. 187). Snowball sampling iden-
tifies cases of interest through an exchange of information between individuals,
basically through the process of networking, one individual in the sample guiding
the researcher to other ones in which the researcher is interested (Cargan, 2008,
p. 237). Similarly, in the classic case study of Union Democracy by Lipset, Coleman
and Trow (1956), which studies the internal democracy within a single trade union,
the authors make use of stratified random sampling5 (Yin, 2014, p. 118).
Though we deal with case study research here under the rubric of qualitative
methodology, given the very nature of a case study strategy which attempts to
study a case in all its dimensions, both qualitative and quantitative methods of
100 Sociological Bulletin 70(1)

data collections are quite common in a case study research. A case study often
entails triangulation6. An important example in this regard is again the study of
Union democracy by Lipset et al. (1956). The researchers first made use of quali-
tative analysis, using exploratory interviews with key informants to develop a few
hypotheses. They, then, used the quantitative survey method to further test and
confirm the relation between the variables of the hypotheses generated during the
qualitative interviews (Yin, 2004, pp. 113–124).
An important element in case study strategy is the relation between theory
and the case study research. While the use of case study to generate theory is
discussed in somewhat greater detail later while explicating generalisations from
case studies, we tend to focus here on the use of case study to test theoretical
propositions. Yin (2014) contends that case studies can be used to test the already
existing theories. While the author of the article fully seconds Yin’s contention
that case studiers can be used to prove or disprove the extant theoretical proposi-
tions, he joins issue with Yin in the way the term ‘theory’ has been used by the
latter. While discussing the utility of case studies in testing theories, Yin uses the
term ‘theory’ quite interchangeably with hypotheses and propositions. The sole
purpose of the author here is to draw a clear distinction between a theory and a
hypothesis. A theory is far more complex an entity. A theory consists of a number
of hypotheses, propositions or ideas dovetailing with one another like fitting into
a jigsaw puzzle, to present one coherent whole attempting to generalise about
the complex reality, and bringing some orderly understanding of it (Huntington,
1997, pp. 28–32). A hypothesis, on the other hand, depicts a correlation between
two or three variables.
A case study, according to the author of this article, can most aptly be used for
testing hypotheses, and not the entire theory. Attempting to test the whole theory
is like ‘spreading oneself too thin’ in a case study research, and ultimately losing
one’s way. Generally, we tend to cull out a few hypotheses or propositions from
the existing theory, and then attempt to test the former in the case under investiga-
tion. This is akin to deductive7 approach in social science research. Hypothesis
testing is best achieved through the process of ‘falsification’ as propounded by
Popper (1959). The doctrine of falsificationism claims that scientific advance-
ment can only come through the testing and falsifying of hypotheses, which if fal-
sified are then replaced by new hypotheses. The new hypotheses are also subject
to falsifying test. One cannot ultimately verify, only falsify (Abercrombie et al.,
2006, p. 142).
Within a case study research, one may study a single case or multiple cases.
Single case studies are most common in case study researches. Yin (2014, p. 59)
says that single cases are ‘eminently justifiable’ under certain conditions: (a)
when the case under study is unique or atypical, and hence, its study is revelatory,
(b) when the case is used to test a hypothesis and (c) when the case under investi-
gation is the quintessential example of a particular phenomenon under investiga-
tion. Multiple-case study design however has a distinct advantage over a single
case study design. Multiple-case studies are generally considered more compel-
ling and robust, and worthy of undertaking. This is because a multiple case study
design has a greater chance of weeding out data collection errors and prejudices,
Priya 101

and produces a more acceptable end result. However, a multiple case study is not
easy to undertake, as its conduct requires extensive resources, and time generally
beyond the means of an independent researcher (Yin, 2014, pp. 60–61).
A famed example of multiple case study is New Towns-In-Town by Derthick
(1972). The study was undertaken by the researcher to study the reach and impact
of federal programs on local communities. Derthick selected seven sites throughout
the country experiencing certain events, obtained data and drew conclusions from
each site, and then integrated the evidences from the multiple cases, to construct an
overall explanation of the federal programs’ outcomes (Yin, 2004, pp. 85–95).
A case study design similar to multiple-case design, is cross-case design (Yin,
2014, p. 242). In it, two or more cases experiencing similar events or phenomenon
are studied, and then the data obtained from different cases are compared to derive
generalisable conclusions. A highly regarded cross-case design is the Anatomy
of a Revolution by Crane Brinton (1938). The study examines the political revo-
lution in four countries—America, Russia, England and France—and through
cross-case analysis tries to sketch out if all followed similar underlying pattern of
events, ultimately leading to the socio-political revolution (ibid., p. 243).

Issues of Validity and Reliability in Case Study research

There are two types of validity: (a) external and (b) internal. External validity
comes into play to address the issue whether the findings of a study can be carried
over (generalised) to other cases. Yin (2009) argues that, in a case study research,
the issue is not to generalise over some broader population, as the case study is not
based on a sample. Rather, as in experimental study, we need to examine the
external validity through replication. The issue of internal validity arises when a
case study seeks to study a particular phenomenon. In any case study, there are
chances that spurious, unmeasured or unaccounted factors, and not the proposed
or expected causes, might actually account for the result. There is a need to mini-
mise the influence of unwanted elements while carrying out a case study research.
However, in buttressing the internal validity, a researcher does suffer from a major
crippling factor. Since case studies are carried out in natural settings, it does not
allow the researchers much leeway to reduce the impact of extraneous factors.
Nevertheless, the researcher should carefully consider all the possible unmeas-
ured factors, and then attempt to find out what effects these factors might have on
the study, and how they might muddy the findings.
Reliability refers to the consistency and repeatability of producing a case
study’s findings (Yin, 2014, p. 100). The reliability of a case study is best estab-
lished by developing what he calls a ‘case study protocol’ (ibid., pp. 101–104). A
case study protocol should have the following constituent elements: (a) an over-
view of the entire study including its objectives, (b) a detailed description of field
procedures including the techniques of data collection to be employed, and how
one plans to move ahead and operate in the field, (c) a clearly and sharply devel-
oped questions whose answers the researcher seeks to obtain, and which should
inform the methods of data collection and (d) a well-formulated guidelines to for
the analysis of the data, and the reporting of the case findings.
102 Sociological Bulletin 70(1)

It is pertinent to discuss here the issue of reliability and validity in qualita-

tive research, as proposed by Guba and Lincoln (1994), which is equally appli-
cable to case study researches. Guba and Lincoln (ibid.) use the term ‘quality’ of
qualitative research, instead of reliability and validity (which, to them, is more
useful for and applicable to quantitative research). The ‘quality’ of a qualitative
research can be assessed through the prime criterion of what they call ‘trustwor-
thiness’ (Bryman, 2008, p. 377). Trustworthiness has four major dimensions, each
of which has an equivalence in the quantitative research. They are, (a) credibility,
paralleling internal validity, (b) transferability, equivalent to external validity, (c)
dependability, which parallels reliability and (d) conformity, having equivalence
in objectivity.
Being strong advocate of social constructivism, to Guba and Lincoln (1994),
there are several feasible accounts of a social reality. Under the circumstances,
the credibility or the wider acceptability of the account of the social phenomenon
proposed by the researcher can be established, only when the research is carried
out diligently, in accordance with the canons of good practice, and the research
findings are subject to rigorous reviews by the peers, which Guba and Lincoln
(ibid.) call ‘respondent validation’.
Since case study entails contextual uniqueness, to Guba and Lincoln (ibid.),
its transferability can be achieved by following Geertz’s ‘thick description’ (dis-
cussed earlier). Detailed and rich description of a culture provides others with a
database for making judgments about the possibility of the transferability of the
findings to other milieux.
Paralleling reliability in quantitative research, dependability in a case study
research can be obtained by what Guba and Lincoln (ibid.) call the ‘auditing
approach’. Auditing involves ensuring that all records at different stages of the
research are neatly maintained—problem formulation, fieldnotes, interview tran-
scripts, data analysis and so on. Peers would act as auditors and peruse the prop-
erly maintained records of research to analyse the dependability of the research
carried out.
Though complete conformity in case study methodology (paralleling objec-
tivity in quantitative research) is highly improbable, as it is not possible for a
researcher to completely ‘bracket out’ all her preconceptions and biases, it still
can be best achieved by highlighting one’s value preferences at the beginning of
the research, as proposed by Weber (1903/1917/1949, p. 60), and through reflex-
ivity (both discussed later).

Case Study and the Issue of Generalisation and

Theory Building
A case study method is often criticised on the ground that it is not possible to
generalise from the intensive study of a single case. Case studies are primarily
ideographic and nomothetic8 study from them is difficult. Mitchell (1983) says
that case studies are unique and atypical, and attempts at finding a ‘typical’ case
whose findings can be generalised are not only tricky but also arduous. However,
Punch (2005) believes that many of these criticisms are being overblown. Such an
Priya 103

over the top reaction against case studies completely obscures their significance.
Since a case generally exemplifies a particular class of phenomenon, its in-depth
study can generate important hypotheses which can then be tested in comparable
case situations. If hypotheses generated from a case study are found to hold water
or replicate through multiple similar cases, this can help the researcher in moving
towards theory building or generalisation.
Yin (2014, pp. 44–45) says that since a case is not representative of a sample
of cases, it cannot form the basis for statistical generalisations. However, case
studies allow for analytic generalisations in which a previously developed theory
is used as a template to compare the empirical results of the case under study.
Such generalisations strengthen the explanatory power of a case study. Classic
case studies in the literature have often enabled researchers studying cases in very
different places and at different times to find similar processes and similar expla-
nations operating. Blaikie (2002) holds that the question of whether it is possible
to generalise from case studies has to do with how cases are selected. Researchers
may feel more comfortable generalising if they work with typical cases, that is,
if the case being studied can be shown to be similar to other cases in terms of
relevant characteristics. However, the difficulty lies in the demonstration whether
a particular case study is typical rather than unique. While strongly advocating
the use of case study for generalisation, Flyvberg (2006) says that a researcher
must banish the following misconceptions about case studies from their mind: (a)
One cannot generalise on the basis of a single case and, hence, case studies do
not contribute to scientific knowledge, (b) Case studies are more useful for gen-
erating hypothesis while other methods are more suitable for hypothesis testing
and theory building and (c) It is often difficult to develop general propositions/
theories on the basis of specific case studies.
However, it cannot be denied that case studies should not be used to build
grand abstract theories. Rather, in case study researches, the focus should be on
developing what the American sociologist Merton (1967) calls the ‘middle-range
theories’. In the words of Merton (1967, p. 39), middle-range theories are those
‘that lie between the minor but necessary working hypotheses that evolve in
abundance during day-to-day research and the all-inclusive systematic efforts to
develop a unified theory that will explain all the observed uniformities of social
behaviour, social organization and social change’.
Merton’s approach allows for building of ‘minor theories’ through research, as
a way of constructing knowledge of the social world. They are abstract enough
to allow testable generalisations from one context to another, but are not abstract
grand theories which rarely translate into empirically testable propositions
(Williams, 2016, pp. 220–221).
One of the most widely read and a classic case study involving generalisation is
Yankee City: The Social Life of a Modern Community by Warner and Lunt (1941).
While studying the social class structure of the Yankee city (pseudonym for a
city north of Boston, USA), Warner and Lunt enumerate six categories of social
classes—lower-lower, upper-lower, lower-middle, upper-middle, lower-upper
and upper-upper. According to Yin (2004, pp. 33–34), the case study became an
instant hit as ‘it was the first one to use and give operational meaning to terms
104 Sociological Bulletin 70(1)

such as ‘upper-upper class, ‘lower-upper class and so on’. Warner and Lunt’s
analysis of social stratification using the above-mentioned six categories has been
found being replicated in several other American cities (a case of analytic gen-
eralisation). The study still carries immense theoretical value in the field of the
sociology of social stratification.

Epistemological Foundations of Case Study Research

Methodology
The article discusses in short two of the most important epistemological
orientations undergirding the case study research strategy—realism and social
constructivism. Generally, researchers find it difficult to sort out the difficulty as
to how to approach the field, how to frame the questions and which techniques of
data collection to be used. A lot depends on the objective of our research. And this
objective of our research is greatly influenced by the underlying epistemological
positions we take while going into the field. Lincoln et al. (2011) posit that any
social research methodology has to deal with two critical elements in the field: (a)
ontology (i.e., the nature of reality) and (b) epistemology (i.e., how we know what
we know). Abercrombie et al. (2006, p. 133) say that epistemology refers to the
theory of knowledge, or the theory of how people acquire the knowledge of the
external world. A researcher’s epistemological position determines to a large
extent the methods she will adopt fort data collection, and for the acquisition of
knowledge of the nature of the existing social reality (ontology).
A major epistemological strand in social research is that of realism. Realism is
closely associated with the larger philosophy of post-positivism. Baronov (2012,
pp. 6–7) posits that post-positivism came up as a corrective effort following telling
criticism of positivism in social science. Post-positivism rejects the positivism’s
search for absolute knowledge, terming it an unrealistic endeavour in social science.
Post-positivism marks a shift in social science from absolute truth towards probabil-
istic knowledge. All observations are to some extent influenced by the perspective
and ideology of the investigator. However, the loss of absolute certainty is by means
a ground to jettison the scientific inquiry itself. It is a mere limitation that must be
taken into consideration while investigating the social world.
Williams (2016, pp. 190–191) highlights the key elements of realism. There is
an actually existing world that is independent of our perceptions of it. Social life
has underlying determinants, and consequently the events in any social reality
have underlying causality. Realists claim that explanation in social science is pos-
sible by uncovering the underlying (generally unobservable) mechanisms which
connect phenomena causally. For instance, Abercrombie et al. (2006) consider
Karl Marx a realist as he believed that all observable phenomena existing in the
superstructure in a capitalist society can be explained by the mechanism of the
underlying capitalist mode of production.
Realist epistemology generally underpins the explanatory case study research.
In explanatory case study, we tend to answer the questions of ‘how’ and ‘why’ of
Priya 105

the existence of a social reality (Yin, 2014), and this can be done by looking for
causal factors, and the underlying determinants of social life. Realist epistemol-
ogy also stimulate theory building in a case study research.
Bryman (2008, pp. 14–16) tries to further refine the epistemology of realism
in a case study (or for that matter in qualitative research in general) by focussing
on critical realism. Critical realism argues that a researcher’s conceptualisation
is simply one way of knowing the reality. Critical realists acknowledge that the
categories they employ to explain the social reality are likely to be provisional.
What makes critical realism really ‘critical’ is what Bhaskar (1975) calls the
identification of ‘generative mechanism’—the hypothetical entities that account
for regularities in the natural or social orders (Bryman, 2008, p. 15). Generative
mechanism offers the prospects of introducing the changes which can transform
the status quo.
Bryman (2008, p. 591) cites a highly illustrious ethnographic case study using
critical realist epistemology, undertaken by Porter (1993). The case was an Irish
hospital, in which the author worked as a nurse for around three months. The
author’s prime focus was to know how racism and professionalism operated and
interacted within the hospital setting, among the hospital staff. To Porter, racism
and professionalism were ‘generative structures’, that is, mechanisms which could
be productive of certain kind of effects. Porter, in the case study, found that during
‘professional’ interaction between the white staff and the ‘racialised minorities’,
the otherwise pervasive racism was tempered down. Racism did not intrude into
work relationships, because of the operation of the greater weight given to peo-
ple’s achievements and performance (such as qualifications and medical skills)
rather than to their ascriptive criteria (such as race) while judging the members
of the profession. The emphasis on values associated with professionalism coun-
tered the potential deleterious impact of racism.
Another important epistemology in qualitative research is that of social con-
structivism. It is closely linked to the larger philosophical position of hermeneu-
tics. Hermeneutics stresses on human subjectivity. Human beings are intentional,
creative beings. They consciously create things, whether small items at the indi-
vidual levels (like a tool or an edible item), or large-scale items as members of
a society (such as a hospital or even the entire economic system). The things
that people create are all expressions of subjectivity, have meaning for those who
create them, and are thus, meaningful social phenomena. As a analytical tool,
hermeneutics enables a researcher to understand how any specific social phenom-
enon can be thought of as an expression of human subjectivity (Baronov, 2012,
pp. 112–115). Creswell (2014, p. 8) says that to social constructivists, meanings
are constructed by humans as they engage with the world. Depending upon their
experiences, the individual develop subjective meanings, and it is the task of the
researcher to look for the complexity of views that make up the social reality.
In a case study research, the epistemology of social constructivism or herme-
neutics can form the basis of both descriptive and explanatory researches. The
link between the description of a single case with constructivism is obvious. In
a detailed in-depth description of a social unit, we tend to seek as to how the
various phenomena within the unit under investigation are expressions of human
106 Sociological Bulletin 70(1)

subjectivity. The epistemology of constructivism also enables one to carry out

the explanatory case study research, where the researcher tries to understand or
explain the wide array of social phenomena using human subjectivity as the base.
Social constructivism is however different from realism. In contrast to realism
which emphasises a social reality outside one’s perception, for constructivists, the
reality is socially constructed. Social constructivism, thus, stress on the interpre-
tive understanding of the reality. While studying the whole social life in a case
study (whether description or explanation), we tend to move from subjectivity,
to what Schutz (1971) calls intersubjectivity—how do social actors through their
interactions create a common subjective view of their social world.
The implication of constructivism for an understanding and explanation of the
social phenomena is more explicitly highlighted by Berger and Luckmann (1966).
Reality is socially created by humans through ongoing negotiations and common
experiences. The objects of social life constituted as a consequence of intersub-
jective reality, in due course, obtain an existence of their own, which Berger and
Luckmann (ibid.) call the ‘objective reality’ (e.g., the various social institutions
such as the economy, polity, etc.). Berger and Luckmann’s thesis is extremely
valuable in not only having a lucid understanding of the social phenomena but
also in generating a rudimentary level generalisation in a case study research,
which can be further tested through replication.
In theory generation using social constructivism in a case study research, a
researcher can take help from the methodology of grounded theory (Yin, 2014,
pp. 178–181). Just as in grounded theory, a case study researcher can use the
various techniques of data collection, especially the in-depth interview, to develop
a conceptual framework using the process of ‘coding’. Coding entails the process
of taking out the key elements in the data, and then defining and labelling them as
to what the data are about. Researchers develop codes as they study and interact
with their data. Codes are emergent, and come out of the field data (Charmaz,
2014, p. 342).
Hermeneutics is also very helpful in analysing the data in a case study research,
especially the documents such as a book. Baronov (2012, pp. 112–113) says that
to fully understand the contents of a book, one must also analyse the historical
or cultural positions in which the author lived, and also the author’s ideology
and position in the society. The book can be seen as the outcome of an author’s
individual subjectivity, and also the cultural–historical milieu in which the author
lived and wrote.

Navigating the Conundrums—Reflexivity and Ethics in

Case Study Research
Lynd and Lynd 1957 while studying Middletown, say that one of the biggest
challenges in a case study research is how to stay objective, and keep one’s biases
and preconceptions at bay (Yin, 2004, p. 28). Since a case study research involves
study of a social unit within its natural setting, it is important for a researcher to
keep her preconceptions away, and not superimpose them either on the subjects,
Priya 107

or while analysing the data. Otherwise, the whole case study research would
stand corrupted. This is obtained through reflexivity. Giddens and Sutton (2014,
pp. 77–79) posit that put it simply, reflexivity involves the process of constant
reflection on one’s biography, social position, values, biases, preconceptions and
so on, so as to constantly ‘bracket them out’, while carrying out the research and
analyse the data. This is easier said than done for a researcher. It requires intense
training and constant practice in the field.
Swartz (1997, pp. 270–283) says that for Bourdieu, a strong advocate of
reflexivity, there is always an element of symbolic power involved in intellec-
tual work. For instance, the social researches do involve some element of sym-
bolic domination of the researcher over the researcher. Sociological research is
invariably bound by viewpoint, and the asymmetric power equation in a social
research might ultimately lead to the legitimation of the dominant concept of the
researcher, if the biases of the latter are not constantly weeded out. To overcome
such corrupting elements in social research, reflexivity is a must. The researcher
needs to control the values, dispositions, attitudes and perceptions, which she
brings from her social background to the field. This entails a critical awareness
by the researcher of one’s social location (e.g., class, gender, race), and how this
background may shape the enquiry. A researcher must also identify those personal
predilections that infiltrate her choice of research topics, methods, and conceptual
and theoretical frameworks.
However, some social thinkers have also expressed their reservations against
reflexivity. Giddens and Sutton (2014, p. 81) caution that though critical self-
reflection is important, an obsession with it can be counter-productive. To them,
‘too much focus on reflexivity can lead to a never ending process of reflecting on
reflection and interpretation layered on interpretation, which risks paralyzing the
researcher’s works who get caught up in his or her own practice at the expense
of what many consider the real task of social research, namely to produce valid
and reliable knowledge of social life in order to better understand or explain it’
(ibid., p. 82).
In this regards, the views of Karl Popper and Max Weber are valuable. Popper
believes that there is no need to seek objectivity at the level of the individual
scientist. The objectivity is achieved at the collective level. It results from mutual
criticisms, and in effect, cancelling out individual biases. Far from a handicap in
the forward march of science, the partiality of the researchers is a benefit, for the
very diversity of strongly held views would motivate others in their critical effort
to prove other people’s views wrong (Sharrock et al., 1990, pp. 205–206). Weber
(1903/1917/1949) too believed that value judgments cannot be wholly discarded
from social researches. He advocated instead that a researcher should make her
value preferences clear upfront. ‘It should be made constantly clear…exactly at
which stage the scientific investigator becomes silent, and the evaluating and
acting person begins to speak’ (ibid., p. 60).
The issue of ethics in a case study research is also gaining currency of late, and
now constitutes an important component of the training of case study researchers.
Yin (2014, p. 95) says that ethics in case study can be buttressed in the field by
conducting the study with extra care and sensitivity towards the participants by
108 Sociological Bulletin 70(1)

adopting the following key steps: (a) obtaining informed consent from all the sub-
jects, (b) protecting those who participate in the study from any harm, (c) avoid-
ing the use of any deception towards the informants, (d) protecting the privacy
and confidentiality of all those who participate so that, they do not unwittingly
by taking part in the research, put themselves in any undesirable position and (e)
taking special precaution to protect the vulnerable groups, such as the children
when they constitute the subject in any case study.

Conclusion
Since a case study research entails an in-depth study of a social unit over a long
period of time, it requires immense patience and meticulousness on the part of the
researcher. The researcher should be well-trained to ‘bracket out’ her value prefer-
ences and preconceptions before going into the field. As fieldwork often throws
surprises, the researcher must be both perceptive and adaptive enough to tweak
her techniques of data collection and make them most suitable for a particular
occasion. Sensitivity, perspicacity, penetrating insight, discernment and creativity
are the constant companion of a well-skilled case study researcher. Further, a
good case study besides being done diligently in accordance with a well-devel-
oped research design, should also involve extensive review of the existing litera-
ture in the area under concern, to look for gaps which can be filled by forming
sharp questions. To enhance the validity and reliability of a case study, especially
of an explanatory case study, the researcher should make use of rival propositions
to try to explain the social phenomenon under investigation, in order to ensure that
the proposition developed by the researcher based on her own fieldwork, is the
most compelling, cogent, logical and sound one.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of
this article.

Notes
1. What constitutes an unbiased or unprejudiced study is discussed later in somewhat
greater detail while dealing with issues like reflexivity and value-free social research.
2. This aspect of case study is discussed further while dealing with the epistemological
foundations of case study research strategy such as constructivism and hermeneutics.
3. The issues of validity and reliability of case study research are discussed later in greater
detail.
Priya 109

4. Sampling is the mathematical means used to draw a representative number of elements

from a large population. Sampling is done whenever data is gathered from a fraction of
a population being studied, allowing the researcher to make probable inferences about
the larger universe without studying every member of that universe (Cargan, 2008,
pp. 235–236).
5. A stratified random sample is used when the researcher wants to ensure that all strata or
segments of the population are adequately represented in the sample. In this sampling
technique, the population is first divided into two or more strata on the basis of some
specific criterion, and then a simple random sample is taken from each strata (Cargan,
2008, p. 241).
6. Triangulation means using more than one method or source of data (generally standing
for use of both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection) in the study of a
social phenomenon, so that the findings may be cross-checked (Bryman, 2008, p. 700).
7. Deduction begins with theory, moves to hypotheses derived from theory, and then tests
hypotheses through observations and other techniques of data collection. This approach
to testing hypotheses is often referred to as hypothetico-deductive method (Scott, 2014,
p. 156).
8. The term ideographic refers to the study of individual, unique persons, events, ore
things. It is contrasted with nomothetic study in which the primary objective is to find
general laws which subsume individual cases (Abercrombie et al., 2006).

References
Abercrombie, N., Hill, S., & Turner, B. S. (2006). Dictionary of sociology (5th ed.).
Penguin Books.
Allison, G., & Zelikow, P. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis
(2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley.
Baronov, D. (2012). Conceptual foundations of social research methods (2nd ed.).
Paradigm Publishers.
Berger, P, & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise on the
sociology of knowledge. Basic Books.
Bhaskar, R. (1975). A realist theory of science. Leeds Books.
Blaikie, N. (2002). Designing social research. Polity Press.
Brinton, C. (1938). The anatomy of revolution. Prentice-Hall.
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Cargan, L. (2008). Doing social research. Rawat.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method
approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
De Vaus, D. (2001). Research design in social research. SAGE Publications.
Derthick, M. (1972). New towns-in-towns: The limits of centralization. The Urban Institute.
Flyvberg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case study research. Qualitative
Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. Basic Books.
Giddens, A., & Sutton, P. (2014). Essential concepts in sociology. Polity Press.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. SAGE Publications.
Haralambos, M., & Head, R. M. (1980). Sociology: Themes and perspectives. Oxford
University Press.
110 Sociological Bulletin 70(1)

Huntington, S. P. (1997). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order.
Penguin Books.
Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contra-
dictions, and emerging confluences revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds.),
The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 97–128). SAGE Publications.
Lipset, S. M, Coleman, J, S., & Trow, M. A. (1956). Union democracy: The internal poli-
tics of the international typographical union. Free Press.
Lynd, R. S., & Lynd, H. M. (1957). Middletown: A study of modern American culture
(originally published in 1929). Harcourt Brace.
Merton, R. (1967). On theoretical sociology. Free Press.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, J. S. (1983). Case and situational analysis. Sociological Review, 31(2), 187–211.
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson.
Porter, S. (1993). Critical realist ethnography. The case of racism and professionalism in a
medical setting. Sociology, 27, 591–609.
Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative
approaches (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Ragin, C. C. (1994). Constructing social research. SAGE Publications.
Schutz, A. (1971). Collected papers 1: The problems of social reality. Martinus Nijhoff.
Scott, J. (2014). A dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Sharrock, W. W., Cuff, E. C., & Francis, D. W. (1990). Perspectives in sociology (3rd ed.).
Unwin Hyman.
Storey, J. (2015). Cultural theory and popular culture: An introduction. Routledge.
Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and power. The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago
University Press.
Warner, L. W., & Lunt, P. S. (1941). Yankee city: The social life of a modern community.
Yale University Press.
Weber, M. (1949). The methodology of social sciences. Free Press.
Whyte, W. F. (1999). Street corner society: The social structure of an Italian slum (4th ed.).
University of Chicago Press.
Williams, M. (2016). Key concepts in the philosophy of social research. SAGE Publications.
Yin, R. (2004). The case study anthology. SAGE Publications.
Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Yin, R. (2014). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.).
SAGE Publications.