Case Study Research

19
Pota Forrest-Lawrence

Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
2 What Is Case Study Research? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
2.1 A Case Study: Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
2.2 Case Study: Types and Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
3 Why Is It so Misunderstood?: Limitations of Case Study Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
4 The Artistry of the Case Study: Advantages of Case Study Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
5 A Different Form of Knowledge: The Unshackling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
5.1 Generalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
5.2 Naturalistic Generalizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
6 Conclusion and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330

Abstract
Case study research has been extensively used in numerous disciplines as a way
to test and develop theory, add to humanistic understanding and existing experi-
ences, and uncover the intricacies of complex social phenomena. Its usefulness as
an exploratory tool makes it a popular methodology to employ among social
scientists. This usefulness, however, has, at times, been overshadowed by several
misunderstandings of and oversimplifications about the nature of case study
research. Although these misunderstandings, such as the inability to confidently
make scientific generalizations on the basis of a single case, may be presented as
limitations, they should not detract social scientists from using case study
research for certain critical research tasks. Used in such a way, case study research

P. Forrest-Lawrence (*)
School of Social Sciences and Psychology, Western Sydney University, Milperra, NSW, Australia
e-mail: p.forrest-lawrence@westernsydney.edu.au

# Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 317

P. Liamputtong (ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_67
318 P. Forrest-Lawrence

holds up considerably well to many other social science methodologies and can
certainly contribute to the development of knowledge. This chapter examines
case study research with emphasis on its “generality,” notably what Stake pro-
posed as “naturalistic generalization,” a proxy process that enables the general-
ization of findings from a single case. It will interrogate the misunderstanding that
case study research cannot effectively contribute to scientific development, by
focusing on single-case designs. Single-case designs attempt to understand one
particular case in-depth and allow for a richer understanding of the issue under
investigation.

Keywords
Case study · Single case · Qualitative research method · Generalizations ·
Naturalistic generalizations

1 Introduction

Case study research has come to occupy a prominent place in the evolving social
science landscape. Focus on this largely qualitative research method has positioned
the case study as a popular “go-to” method for researchers. Its flexible approach has
allowed for its extensive use in both qualitative and quantitative studies and within a
vast range of disciplines including but not limited to political science, law, public
health, medicine, business, social science, and education.
The versatility of the case study has positioned it at the forefront of preferred
methodological approaches for many researchers. In this way, it can be used in
exploratory, explanatory, and evaluation types of research to develop theory and
generate and test hypotheses and can embrace varied epistemological orientations.
Such features have made the case study quite an attractive research method to
employ within the social sciences.
While this attractiveness has increased its popularity, it has also highlighted what
some consider its many shortcomings (see Gerring 2006). One such shortcoming is
the inability for a case study to make scientific generalizations. These generalizations
center on notions of predictability, validity, and causation and are considered by
many as the only way in which researchers can understand complex social phenom-
ena. The perception of formal generalization as the only contributor to scientific
development ignores the value of other types of generalizations that can effectively
contribute to scientific knowledge and progress.
This chapter will commence with an overview of case study research, detail-
ing some of its uses and applications. Following this summary, it then examines
why it is so misunderstood as a methodology and then highlights some of its
advantages. This then leads to a key focus of the chapter, generalization, by
examining the utility of single-case designs as contributing to scientific devel-
opment via a process proposed by Stake (1978) known as “naturalistic general-
ization.” The chapter will conclude with a brief discussion about future directions
for case study research.
19 Case Study Research 319

2 What Is Case Study Research?

Reviewing a plethora of material and literature on case study research does little to
synthesize the complementing yet, at times, contradictory definitions of a term that
has come to mean different things to different disciplines. What we do know is that
case study research clearly places cases not variables at center stage (Ragin 1992).
With this in mind, the attempt here is to offer a broad-strokes overview of case
study research.
Some of the earliest documented historical case studies can be traced to the works
of ancient Greek writers Herodotus and Thucydides (Elman et al. 2016). Though by
far, scientific revolutionist Galileo and his rejection of Aristotle’s law of gravity via
the process of gravitational force is considered one of the most famous case studies
of the last millennium (Flyvberg 2011). Many such “case studies” have subsequently
filled the pages of history books, presenting detailed overviews of complex “cases,”
Graham Allison’s methodical case study analysis, one such contemporary example
(Allison 1969). Using an explanatory single-case study, Allison examined the 1962
Cuban Missile Crisis in intricate detail. These contributions highlight specific and
unique cases and offer insight into both the value of the case study and its many uses
and applications.
The use of case studies according to discipline is highlighted by Thomas (2011).
Here, Thomas notes that disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and education
position the case study in a largely “interpretive frame.” Alternatively, disciplines
such as politics and business adopt a more neopositivistic epistemological stance by
largely identifying variables as cases. This approach, claim Bartlett and Vavrus
(2017), views the world via laws centered on cause and effect, where scientific
methods prevail. Other disciplines such law and medicine largely highlight novel
phenomena. Such different uses of the case study according to a researchers’
epistemological stance highlight the diversity and flexibility of the case study.

2.1 A Case Study: Definitions

Such wide-ranging applications, however, do present difficulties in defining a case

study (Exworthy & Peckham 2012). A plethora of definitions, explanations, insights,
and understandings has made it difficult to provide a single definition of a concept so
widely used. This is further compounded by the need to recognize both the
researchers’ methodological and epistemological stance when conceptualizing a
definition of a case study (Bartlett and Vavrus 2017). The following details a number
of definitions of a case study and presents ways to understand its meaning and
contribution:

• A research method that involves an in-depth understanding and analysis of a case.

• A form of empirical social enquiry that interrogates social phenomena both in
detail and in a real-world context (Yin 2014, p. 6).
320 P. Forrest-Lawrence

• A “frame” that “determines the boundaries of information-gathering” (Stoecker

1991, p. 98).
• A framework that centers on answering a specific question relevant to a case
(Seawright and Gerring 2008).
• An intensive examination of a single case whose aim is to illuminate a larger set
of cases (Gerring 2007, pp. 20, 65).
• Cases can be anything from an event, organization, group, person, and so on.
They can influence the development of public policies and practices in a broad
range of fields (Duff 2014, p. 234).
• The phenomena studied are done so in their natural surroundings (Swanborn
2010, p. 15).
• Provides a multifaceted way of structuring our understanding of reality.
• Offer an explanation that holistically captures the dynamics of a period in time
and of a certain social unit (Mills et al. 2010, p. 17).
• Its chameleon-like epistemological qualities allows it to embrace many different
orientations (Yin 2014, p. 17).
• Can uncover patterns, establish meanings, reach conclusions, and build theory
(Stake 1995, p. 67).
• Can examine causal mechanisms, test theoretical predictions specific to general
models, and detail features about a specific case (Gerring 2007, p. 5).
• Allows for an intimate understanding of a phenomenon under investigation of
which “the case is exemplar” (Duff 2014, pp. 236–237).
• Case study research is “not a methodological choice but a choice of what is to be
studied” (Stake 2005, p. 443).

While these definitions offer some insight into the case study and, by doing so,
highlight qualities that present it as an attractive research approach, it is still
considered by some to exist and survive in a “curious methodological limbo”
(Gerring 2007, p. 7). While this may limit its attractiveness, it still thrives because
of its utility and its focus on qualitative research methods as methodological rivals to
the once dominant quantitative and “positivist” models of causal explanations
(Gerring 2007; see also ▶ Chap. 9, “Positivism and Realism”).

2.2 Case Study: Types and Designs

Researchers typically employ a descriptive, exploratory, or explanatory case study to

examine and understand the phenomenon under investigation. A descriptive case
study describes the phenomenon in its context. Whyte (1955) used a descriptive case
study to examine an Italian-influenced US neighborhood. Alternatively, an explor-
atory case study aids in the development of theories and hypotheses, whereas
an explanatory case study explains how events transpire over time. It can also
examine cause and effect relationships. As highlighted earlier, Allison (1969), for
example, employed an explanatory single-case study to examine the 1962 Cuban
Missile Crisis.
19 Case Study Research 321

2.2.1 Multiple-Case Designs

A case study can either comprise a multiple-case or single-case design. A multiple-
case design is typically selected to provide a better understanding about a collection
of cases, as well as explore, test, and build theory. Stake (2006) notes that a multiple-
case study examines how the subject of interest operates within different settings and
within different contexts. Yeh and Hedgespeth (1995), for example, employed a
comparative multiple-case study of 15 families of adolescents to examine the
relationship between particular family factors and alcohol/drug abuse.

2.2.2 Single-Case Designs

A single-case design is appropriate should a researcher want to understand and
examine one social phenomenon in detail (Merriam 1988). This design type also
allows for an elaboration of quite complex characteristics of a single case (Duff
2014). Similarly, Stake (2005, p. 445) notes that the single-case design attempts
to understand one particular case in-depth rather than what is mostly “. . . true of the
many.” Skar and Prellwitz (2008) used a single-case to describe how a child
diagnosed with obesity understood his involvement in play activities. This method
allowed them to provide a deeper understanding of the issue.
According to both interpretivists and realists, a single case is able to provide
different accounts of causation, clarify theoretical relationships in a certain setting
that may appear obscure, and construct theory (Mills et al. 2010). They can also offer
a useful understanding and intimate knowledge of the particulars of a singular
case such as a school, locality, type of food, and so on. This, according to Stake
(1978, p. 6), showcases how the “truth lies in particulars.”
While Stake (1995) claims that there is much one can learn that is considered
general from a single case, single-case design studies are generally perceived as a
poor basis for scientific generalization and, therefore, weaker than other types of
research designs. This perception, however, neglects to emphasize the uniqueness of
the case study and its potential as a valuable and informative research methodology.

3 Why Is It so Misunderstood?: Limitations of Case Study

Research

While its varied uses may be one of its more appealing features, the case study is
simultaneously criticized for its lack of rigor and representativeness (considered
weaker with respect to external validity as it comprises a small number of cases)
(Gerring 2007) and its inability to generalize, particularly from a single case (Simons
1986). Hamel (1993) highlights how these limitations are presented as fundamental
flaws, particularly if considered in the context of the collection, construction, and
analysis of empirical material. As a result, the case study has been “disregarded as a
methodology” and relegated to something unscientific notably by proponents of
causality via quantitative approaches, who consider this approach as the only way
one can add to scientific knowledge (Flyvberg 2011).
322 P. Forrest-Lawrence

Presented as the “weak sibling” of the social sciences methods, the case study has
been further criticized as something “mere,” “biased,” “subjective” (though this may
not necessarily be considered a weakness), and “non-generalizable” with “weak
empirical leverage” that is highly “suspect” (Yin 1984; Gerring 2006, pp. 6–7). Such
constructions suggest that generalizations cannot be made via case studies because
they defy the laws and methods of physics, where closed systems are only used,
meaning these systems are isolated from their environment (Bertalanffy 1973, cited
in Patton and Appelbaum 2003). What Stake (1995) demonstrates, however, is that a
case is both an open and an integrated system, where the rules of “closed” systems of
the casual sciences do not apply. This is clearly something either ignored or
overlooked by those who openly criticize the case study as unable to contribute to
scientific knowledge and an understanding of the world.
This negative construction of the case study positions it as subordinate to natural
sciences methods and secondary to studies that typically comprise large samples.
Such a perception stems from a normative (empiricist) view of research – what it
ought to be, how it ought to be conducted, and what it ought to do. This, according to
Simons (1986), assumes a rather specific polarity, one considered quite inflexible.
This view of what research ought to be, and ought to do is illustrated in the
work of Simons (2015). Here, Simons (2015, p. xi) highlights the growing percep-
tion, at least on a political level, that evidence produced via randomized controlled
trials is the only type of evidence that should inform and influence policy (see also
▶ Chaps. 3, “Quantitative Research,” and ▶ 37, “Randomized Controlled Trials”).
Such an inflexible way of understanding the scope and breadth of evidence leaves
little room for evidence produced via single cases to inform policy and political
action. This is perhaps, in part, the result of the domination of the natural sciences
model, based on a deductive form of reasoning that affirms anything “outside the
system of explained science” to be erroneous (Stake 1995). Clearly, the use of single-
case designs that adopt an inductive approach to research is at odds with this natural
sciences deductive approach.
This general disregard for the case study is most pervasive in discussions on
generalization. The supposed inability for case studies to generalize is, therefore, an
important misunderstanding to interrogate. It affirms that there is only one way to
generalize and that way is not from a single case but rather via large samples.
Flyvberg (2011) explores this common misunderstanding by way of Galileo’s
rejection of Aristotle’s law of gravity (physical theory). The process of rejection
did not involve numerous observations but rather two experiments, the first, a
thought experiment and the second, a practical experiment, a case study, leading
to a new way of imagining and understanding physics.
Nevertheless, there still remains a general distrust of the case study in particular if
it involves a single case. This is remarkable when we consider Karl Popper’s (1959)
notion of falsification. It involves conducting a rigorous scientific test in which a
proposition is examined, and if only one observation does not fit this proposition, the
proposition is either rejected or revised. Such a test renders the case study most
suitable for identifying what Popper referred to as the “black swans.” Looking at this
scientific test, one can say that a case study is in a unique position to locate these
19 Case Study Research 323

“black swans” because of its intimate approach to the examination of that under
investigation (Flyvberg 2006).
However, we must also recognize the paradox of the case study, as explored by
Simons (1986). According to Simons (1986), this paradox is most visible when we
consider how a case study can generate both an understanding of the particular
though simultaneously generate an understanding of the universal. Case studies can,
therefore, partake in both worlds, that of the general and that of the particular
(Gerring 2007). This unique quality of the case study, viewed by some as a
limitation, is in actuality one of its key advantages.
The many misunderstandings of the case study have generally centered on
notions of generalization and subjectivity. While these are important to consider
and must be recognized in discussions on the suitability of the case study as a
methodology, we must also consider the many benefits of the case study. By doing
so, we begin to recognize the artistry of the case study as a methodological
contributor to scientific knowledge.

4 The Artistry of the Case Study: Advantages of Case Study

Research

The growing shift from a variable-focused approach to causality toward a more case
study approach is the result of both a creeping skepticism of standard regression
techniques and the desire to preserve the details of individual cases, something com-
monly lost in large-N type of analyses (Gerring 2006). This has enabled the case study
to emerge as quite an attractive alternative to other methods that have typically centered
on causality, predictiveness, and traditional forms of generalization.
The case study contributes to our knowledge bases in rather unique and informa-
tive ways. It does so via its attention to the local situation and less so on how it
represents other cases more generally (Stake 2006). It enables an investigation of
complex social phenomena to “retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of
real-life events” without being reductionist (Yin 2009, p. 3). Such an inductive
approach considers empirical details that comprise the object of the study.
One of the major strengths of the case study is its distinct ability to uncover the
intricacies of complex social phenomena by directing attention to the local situation
(Stake 2006). Unlike experiments or surveys that intentionally separate a phenom-
enon from its context by controlling for particular variables, the case study pays
particular attention to contextual conditions. It is a useful method for researchers
who seek to examine contemporary events where behavior cannot be manipulated
and can also understand the unfolding case over time (Yin 2009).
The epistemological advantage of the case study is that it is a tried and tested
approach that offers a rewarding way of contributing to experience by improving our
understanding (Stake 1978). Meanwhile, the methodological value of the case study
specific to public administration and policy analysis is its ability to draw on many
sources and research designs that are largely qualitative (Marinetto 2012). This then
324 P. Forrest-Lawrence

generates a rich narrative allowing researchers a degree of methodological flexibility

that encourages theoretical insights.
The value of the case study is also recognized in the theory-building process
(Eisenhardt 1989). Eckstein (1975) affirms that the case study is critical to all stages
of theory building though most useful when researcher theories are tested. It can add
a depth and dimension to theoretical understanding and, by doing so, simplify our
understanding of reality (Donmoyer 2000). Largely, the case study can be used to
elaborate theory and test theory (Stoecker 1991).
The case study, thus, challenges the supremacy of the natural sciences as the only
proper contributor to scientific knowledge. This is eloquently demonstrated by
MacDonald and Walker (1975, p. 3) who present the case study as a valuable and
unique contributor to human understanding. They poignantly state:

Case study is the way of the artist, who achieves greatness when, through the portrayal of a
single instance locked in time and circumstance, he communicates enduring truths about the
human condition. For both the scientist and artist, content and intent emerge in form.

Here, MacDonald and Walker (1975) highlight the artistic flair of the case study,
emphasize its intense focus on the particular, and, by doing so, position it is a strong
alternative to purely quantitative methods for researchers to consider. It offers a
different form of knowledge to the researcher, one that is particular, unique and
intimate, and free from predictiveness and causation, though bounded by the
researchers’ subjectivity. The case study, thus, enables the researcher to generalize,
not in the tradition sense according to the natural sciences but via the strength
available in the description of the content (Stake 1995).

5 A Different Form of Knowledge: The Unshackling

The case study is a creative way to examine and understand the human condition. It
allows the researcher to navigate through a process that enables a particular narrative
to prevail that is outside the strict confines of empiricism. Here, we see how
knowledge has the ability to be transferred without the need to aspire to formal
generalization. This section explores what Stake (1978) first proposes as naturalistic
generalizations, as a way for the case study to generalize via the reader’s experience.
It will, however, first interrogate the notion of generalization in its traditional form in
order to contextualize the discussion.

5.1 Generalization

Generalization is the transference of what we know and what we learn in one

situation to another. It is considered one of the most fundamental goals of scientists.
It is almost always linked to terms such as randomness, sampling, statistical
significance, reliability, causation, a priori, and so forth (see also ▶ Chap. 38,
19 Case Study Research 325

“Measurement Issues in Quantitative Research”). These terms are embedded in

traditional forms of research and are comforting to social scientists, largely because
many consider no other suitable alternative way to discuss social phenomena
(Donmoyer 2000). This unwavering conviction in the power of universal rationality
centered on the pursuit of generalizable knowledge is still considered by some as the
orthodox way to attain real knowledge (Schwandt and Gates 2018).
In an attempt to interrogate the view that “nomic” generalizations (centered on
prediction) are the only way we can generate scientific progress, Lincoln and Guba
(2000) highlight some of the major deficiencies of this type of traditional generaliz-
ability while simultaneously providing an alternative, “transferability.” They point to
five key problems: “dependence on the assumption of determinism,” “dependence on
inductive logic,” “dependence on the assumption of freedom from time and context,”
“entrapment in the nomothetic-idiographic dilemma,” and “entrapment in a reduction-
ist fallacy (See Lincoln and Guba (2000, pp. 29–36) for a detailed overview of these
deficiencies and of transferability).” These problems highlight some of the deficiencies
with the popular nomothetic conceptualization of generalization.
Consequently, this reliance on nomothetic generalization has stymied progress
by hindering the way we understand the purpose of generalization as one
enveloped by the strict confines of empiricism. This restricted view of general-
ization, labeled by Donmoyer (2000, p. 46) as both “dysfunctional” and “out of
step with contemporary epistemology,” overstates (formal) generalizations as the
only way to appropriately contribute to scientific progress.
Statistical generalization, which typically attempts to enumerate frequencies,
should not be the goal of social scientists given it is not the only legitimate method
of scientific inquiry. Instead, Yin (2014) proposes that the focus should be on
analytic generalization. By focusing on analytical generalizations, one can create a
proper case, rather than create something to be replicated repeatedly, as is the case
with statistical generalization (Patton and Appelbaum 2003; see ▶ Chap. 38, “Mea-
surement Issues in Quantitative Research”).
We need to examine in more detail this idea of analytical generalization that steers
away from generalizations that only refer to notions of prediction. By doing so, we
begin to see the value in what Hamilton (1976) describes as a “science of the
singular.” While this type of science does not generalize in a propositional sense,
its usefulness, because of its focus on the particular by way of narratives and others
forms, allows us to learn in different ways and acquire knowledge in ways consid-
ered only decades ago as completely unscientific.
This degree of freedom (not in the statistical sense) available via the case study
provides social scientists with a flexibility to produce different ways of acquiring
knowledge. Eisenhardt (1989) asserts that this freedom is made possible via two
ways: one, by the ability for researchers to select a range of different methods and,
two, the distinctive “in-depth style” inherent in the case study researcher. Both
these ways release the researcher from the shackles of strict procedure, liberate
their thinking, and increase the likelihood of generating novel theory. Here,
Eisenhardt (1989) allows us to consider the vast possibilities that the case study
offers both qualitative and quantitative researchers.
326 P. Forrest-Lawrence

This unshackling allows for different types of knowledge, such as tacit, to sit
alongside other forms of knowledge and be acknowledged as key contributors to
scientific progress. Naturalistic generalizations, as noted by Stake (1978, 1995), can
unshackle the researcher and allow them to engage in a different, more visceral form
of generalization. The attempt here is not to propose a novel approach but, rather,
highlight the need to revisit naturalistic generalizations.

5.2 Naturalistic Generalizations

The case study cannot confidently make “scientific” generalizations, particularly if a

researcher intends to use a single-case design as the case is based on specificities
such as precise events, locations, or periods of time (Mills et al. 2010). In order to
address this limitation, Stake and Trumbull (1982) coin the term “naturalistic
generalization,” a proxy process that enables the generalization of findings from
a single-case (Stake 1978). This allows a level of generalizability previously not
available to the case study, particularly single-case design studies.

5.2.1 Discussion
Naturalistic generalizations are an alternative to the more traditional forms of
generalization that center on predictiveness, formality, and keeping propositions
intact (Simons et al. 2003). They are quite different to explicated (nomic) general-
izations where emphasis is placed on a different type of knowledge. As a result, a
humanistic and subjective understanding is more prevalent and even more relevant.
They develop within individuals as a product of their individualized and subjective
experience with a case.
This understanding comes from tacit knowledge. This type of knowledge is
described by Stake (1978, p. 6) as the knowledge of “how things are, why they are,
how people feel about them, and how these things are likely to be later or in others
places with which this persons is familiar.” This process of generalization may be
verbalized, allowing knowledge to transfer from tacit to the propositional, though
unable to traverse to the empirical and even logical that typically characterize expli-
cated (nomic) generalizations (Stake 1978). Via such tacit understandings, Stake was
able to divert attention to their value in generalizing from a case (Simons 1986).
Stake (1978) claims that explanation is best suited to propositional knowledge,
whereas understanding is best suited to tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is knowledge
gained via experiences with objects and events, “experience with propositions about
them and rumination” (Stake 1978, p. 5). Polanyi (1958) highlights how individuals
harness and contain this tacit knowledge that then allows them to build new under-
standings of complex social phenomena. While these do not pass logical and empirical
tests specific to formal generalizations, they have the ability to guide action.
Naturalistic generalizations are conclusions that provide insights into a case by
reflecting on its specific and unique details. They are embedded in the experience of
the reader, be it orally or via some other way (Stake 1995). There is a reliance on
judgment and interpretation that enables knowledge to be transferred from one
19 Case Study Research 327

context to another (Simons et al. 2003). This is principally achieved by the reader,
who reflects on the particulars and the description contained within a case. The
reader then determines how particular details of the case are similar to other
situations by drawing on these reflections in order to generalize. The reader then
assesses whether these particulars resonate with their personal or vicarious experi-
ence and, if so, determines whether the situations are “similar enough to warrant
generalizations” (Melrose 2009, p. 600).
Largely, this process enables individuals to form generalizations from their own
personal experiences by adding a single case to a repertoire of cases, creating a
different group from which to generalize. It is, however, important to note that if this
process is to effectively take place, the researchers must provide thick description
and enough material for the reader to determine the relevance and meaning of this
information to their lives.
This process allows findings from one case study to be applied to another similar
case study in order to establish useful and relevant understandings (Stake 1978).
Such generalizations are then reinforced via repeated encounters (Stake 2005). They
are most useful if one seeks to acquire knowledge of the particular. Such a process is
described by Stake (2000, p. 22) as both “intuitive and empirical and not idiotic.”
Stake (1978) argues that we must consider the point of view of the user of the
generalization. Via the process of naturalistic generalization, which centers on the
personal experiences of the user, cases, notably single cases, are able to
build naturalistic generalizations (Lincoln and Guba 2000). This “natural experi-
ence,” as purported by Stake (1978), is an effective way to add to human under-
standing and can be achieved via words and images of the natural experience
(Lincoln and Guba 2000).

5.2.2 Example
Stake (1995) details practical points that researchers must consider in studies that
encourage naturalistic generalizations. These points will assist the reader in provid-
ing an opportunity for vicarious experience. They are detailed below (Table 1):
A contemporary example where a case study researcher conducted a narrative and
phenomenological case study that encouraged readers to make naturalistic general-
izations is The Wild Food Challenge: A Case Study of a Self-initiated Experiential
Education Project [SEEP], by Graham McLaren (2015). This study focused on
SEEP, a type of self-directed learning that involves a person creating specific goals,
commencing the project (this is self-initiated), and following it through to comple-
tion. The SEEP was a case of a young adolescent male who attended a school that
provided a “deep nature connection mentoring.” Interviews with the student and his
mentors revealed the students’ motivations and inspirations and their impact on his
own sense of self. The SEEP was presented by way of a narrative account that
encouraged the reader to engage in naturalistic generalization by drawing on the
particulars of the study to determine ways they can inform their personal experi-
ences. This information may be useful to educators, mentors, and other professionals
who design curriculum and educative methods that encourage teenagers to engage in
such self-initiated projects on experiential education.
328 P. Forrest-Lawrence

Table 1 A list of things to assist in the validation of naturalistic generalization

1. Include accounts of matters the reader are already familiar with so they can gauge the accuracy,
completeness, and bias of reports of other matters
2. Provide adequate raw data prior to interpretation so that readers can consider their own
alternative interpretations
3. Describe the methods of case research used in ordinary language including how the
triangulation was carried out, especially the confirmation and efforts to disconfirm major
assertions
4. Make available, both directly and indirectly, information about the researcher and other sources
of input
5. Provide the reader with reactions to the accounts from the data sources and other prospective
readers, especially those expected to make use of the study
6. De-emphasize the idea that validity is based on what every observer sees, on simple replication;
emphasize whether or not the reported happenings could have or could not have been seen
Source: Stake (1995), The art of case study research, p. 87

5.2.3 Critique
Such a different way of generalizing has come under scrutiny over the years. One
criticism is that the onus of making naturalistic generalizations is directly placed on
the reader instead of the researcher (Hellström 2008; Melrose 2009). It is, therefore,
up to the reader to come to their own conclusions using the thick description and
context provided by the researcher. This can be viewed as incongruent to scientific
induction, a process whereby the researcher, not the reader, develops general prin-
ciples from specific observations.
Other criticisms have focused on the unoriginality of naturalistic generalizations.
Hellström’s (2008, p. 335) examination of naturalistic generalization concludes that
to break this type of generalization from traditional notions of generalizability is
unwarranted and even premature. This is largely because interpretivist types of
generalizations, such as naturalistic, are “well accommodated” within the broader
ambit of generalization. All types of generalizations share the objective of providing
a detailed understanding by transferring knowledge from one situation to another
(larger population). Therefore, Hellström claims that naturalistic generalization is no
different, as it shares this goal with others forms of generalizations.
Another criticism noted by Donmoyer (2000) is that naturalistic generalization
emerged as the method of choice for evaluation research and, therefore, its utility and
application to other types of research is limited. While Donmoyer (2000) rightly
dictates that Stake’s conception of naturalistic generalization is underdeveloped,
Donmoyer does little to build upon this form of generalization that has merit
but requires some development. Donmoyer, however, suggest an alternative con-
ceptualization of generalization specific to single cases, drawing on the conception
of experiential knowledge.
While there is much that naturalistic generalizations can offer, and an
interpretivist stance toward case studies is beneficial, we should not ignore “power
relations or social structures,” which Bartlett and Vavrus (2017, p. 33) claim are
“underemphasized in Stake’s presentation of case studies.” The “politics of
19 Case Study Research 329

representation,” notably “who gets to represent whom and how in a research

project,” is not considered by Stake who neglects to consider researcher reflexivity
in the research process (Bartlett and Vavrus 2017).
However, as noted by Stake (2000), naturalistic generalization is itself a type of
generalization, not in the traditional sense but a type that allows the reader to
recognize similarities contained within an object both in and out of context and to
be aware of this taking place. Such an engagement with the case will provide for a
deeper, more meaningful understanding of the case, one that is tied to the experi-
ences of the reader and one that engages with the reader on a more intimate level.
Here, the reader is no longer a bystander, watching from the outside looking in and
reading the interpretations of the researcher. Rather, the reader immerses him/herself
in the case and develops his/her own interpretations of it. So, when we position
naturalistic generalizations alongside nomothetic generalizations, we begin to see
that knowledge should not be limited to traditional forms of causation. Instead,
knowledge of the particular, knowledge gained via different methodological
approaches, is valuable to human understanding of social phenomena.

6 Conclusion and Future Directions

The case study has emerged as an important methodological contributor. It allows for
rich theoretical insights that are transferable over time and place. While typically
considered a qualitative method, its flexibility and utility have enabled its use in both
qualitative and quantitative studies. Such advantages of case study research have
made it quite a favorable approach to social science and public health researchers.
While the advantages of the case study are numerous, it has also come under
scrutiny, notably in terms generalization. While we must recognize that case studies,
notably single cases, are not suitable for traditional (nomothetic) types of general-
izations, knowledge can still be transferred even when this knowledge is not
generalized in a formal sense (Flyvberg 2011).
Here, we must consider the need to challenge the traditional and rather orthodox
thinking entrenched in the way we understand the utility of methods such as the case
study. The dominance of natural sciences and the often uncontested approaches to
scientific development they espouse have at times hindered the progress of methods
beyond the strict confines of empiricism. By contesting such traditional ways of how
research ought to be conducted, we can allow for and also encourage different types
of generalizations as ways to understand that which we seek to examine. One such
approach that was canvassed in this chapter was naturalistic generalizations.
We cannot ignore the power of naturalistic generalizations, not as a replacement
for nomothetic forms of generalizations but what Stake (1980, p. 2) avers to in his
response to criticism by Hamilton (1979), “primarily a creation of [ones’s] own
experimental knowing.” This unorthodox approach to generalization allows the
researcher to generalize according to the similarities and differences specific to
their own experiences, a process Simons et al. (2003, p. 360), have referred to as
“individual recipient judgement.”
330 P. Forrest-Lawrence

Naturalistic generalizations are particularly useful to researchers who want to

garner the personal and vicarious experiences of their readers. They emphasize a
practicality and functionality of research results that draw directly on the experiences
of the reader. These accounts are completely subjective and, thus, offer a powerful
way to understand the particulars and intricacies of a case directly from the readers’
perspective.
A future direction for case study research specific to naturalistic generalizations is
that consideration must be given to researcher reflexivity to adequately acknowledge
what Bartlett and Vavrus (2017, p. 34) state as the “politics of representation.” We
cannot ignore that the researcher does play an important role in naturalistic gener-
alizations principally in relation to how information is intended to be absorbed by the
reader and how this information is initially represented in the study. This will allow
for a more nuanced way to involve naturalistic generalizations in case study research
that provides both clarity and openness.

References
Allison GT. Conceptual models and the Cuban missile crisis. Am Polit Sci Rev.
1969;63(3):689–718.
Bartlett L, Vavrus F. Rethinking case study research. New York: Routledge; 2017.
Donmoyer R. Generalizability and the single-case study. In: Gomm R, Hammersley M, Foster P,
editors. Case study method- key issues, key texts. London: Sage; 2000. p. 45–68.
Duff PA. Case study research on language learning and use. Ann Rev Appl Linguist.
2014;34:233–55.
Eckstein H. Case study in theory and political science. In: Greenstein FJ, Polsby NW, editors.
Handbook of political science. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1975. p. 79–137.
Eisenhardt KM. Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev. 1989;14(4):532–50.
Elman C, Gerring J, Mahoney J. Case study research: putting the quant into the qual. Sociol
Methods Res. 2016;45(3):375–91.
Exworthy E, Peckham S. Case studies in health policy: an introduction. In: Exworthy E, Peckham S,
Powell M, Hann A, editors. Shaping health policy: case study methods and analysis. Bristol:
The Policy Press; 2012. p. 3–20.
Flyvberg B. Five misunderstanding about case-study research. Qual Inq. 2006;12(2):219–45.
Flyvberg B. Case study. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. The Sage handbook of qualitative
research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2011. p. 301–16.
Gerring J. The conundrum of the case study. In: Gerring J, editor. Case study research: principles
and practices. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006. p. 1–13.
Gerring J. Case study research- principles and practices. New York: Cambridge University Press;
2007.
Hamel J. Case study methods. Newbury Park: Sage; 1993.
Hamilton D. A science of the singular. Urbana: CIRCE, University of Illinois; 1976.
Hamilton D. Some more on fieldwork, natural languages and naturalistic generalisation (mimeo),
discussion paper. University of Glasgow; 1979.
Hellström T. Transferability and naturalistic generalization: new generalizability concepts for social
science or old wine in new bottles. Qual Quant. 2008;42:321–37.
Lincoln YS, Guba EG. The only generalization is: there is no generalization’. In: Gomm R,
Hammersley M, Foster P, editors. Case study method key issues, key texts. London: Sage;
2000. p. 27–44.
19 Case Study Research 331

MacDonald B, Walker R. Case study and the social philosophy of educational research. Camb
J Educ. 1975;5:2–11.
Marinetto M. Case studies of the health policy process: a methodological introduction.
In: Exworthy E, Peckham S, Powell M, Hann A, editors. Shaping health policy: case study
methods and analysis. Bristol: The Policy Press; 2012. p. 21–40.
McLaren G. The wild food challenge: a case study of a self-initiated experiential education project.
Graham: Prescot College, Proquest; 2015.
Melrose S. Naturalistic generalization. In: Mills AJ, Durepos G, Wiebe E, editors. Encyclopedia of
case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2009.
Merriam SB. Case study research in education- a qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Inc; 1988.
Mills AJ, Durepos G, Wiebe E, editors. Encyclopedia of case study research, vol. 1. Thousand
Oaks: Sage; 2010.
Patton E, Appelbaum SH. The case for case studies in management research. Manag Res News.
2003;26(5):60–71.
Polanyi M. Personal knowledge. New York: Harper and Row; 1958.
Popper K. The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books; 1959.
Ragin CC. “Casing” and the process of social inquiry. In: Ragin CC, Becker HS, editors. What is a
case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
1992. p. 217–26.
Schwandt TA, Gates EF. Case study methodology. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. The Sage
handbook of qualitative research. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2018. p. 341–58.
Seawright J, Gerring J. Case selection techniques in case study research- a menu of qualitative and
quantitative options. Polit Res Q. 2008;61(2):294–308.
Simons H. The paradox of case study. Camb J Educ. 1986;26(2):225–40.
Simons H. Preface. In: Russell J, Greenhalgh T, Kushner S, editors. Case study evaluation: past,
present and future challenges. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2015. p. ix–xvi.
Simons H, Kushner S, Jones K, James D. From evidence-based practice to practice-based evidence:
the idea of situated generalisation. Res Pap Educ. 2003;18(4):347–64.
Skar L, Prellwitz M. Participation in play activities: a single-case study focusing on a child with
obesity experiences. Scand J Caring Sci. 2008;22(2):211–9.
Stake ER. The case study method in social inquiry. Educ Res. 1978;7(2):5–8.
Stake ER. Generalizations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education
Association, Boston. 1980
Stake ER. The art of case study research. London: Sage; 1995.
Stake RE. The case study method in social inquiry. In: Gomm R, Hammersley M, Foster P, editors.
Case study method key issues, key texts. London: Sage; 2000. p. 19–26.
Stake RE. Qualitative case studies. In: Denzin NY, Lincoln YS, editors. The Sage handbook of
qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2005. p. 443–66.
Stake RE. Multiple case study analysis. New York: The Guilford Press; 2006.
Stake ER, Trumbull D. Naturalistic generalizations. Rev J Philos Soc Sci. 1982;7(1):1–12.
Stoecker R. Evaluating and rethinking the case study. Sociol Rev. 1991;39(1):88–112.
Swanborn PG. Case study research- what, why and how? London: Sage; 2010.
Thomas G. A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition,
discourse, and structure. Qual Inq. 2011;17(6):511–21.
Whyte WF. Street corner society: the social structure of an Italian slum (original work published in
1943). 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1955.
Yeh LS, Hedgespeth J. A multiple case study comparison of normative private preparatory school
and substance abusing/mood disordered adolescents and their families. Adolescence.
1995;118:413–28.
Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1984.
Yin RK. Case study research: designs and methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2009.
Yin RK. Case study research: designs and methods. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2014.