A Case for Case Studies in Social Work Research

Abstract

The case study is a neglected and maligned approach to social work research. Rejected more for how uninformed researchers have used it and less for flaws intrinsic to its nature, the case study is compatible with many forms of social work practice and policy research. Although case studies are not useful for estimating prevalence rates or for probabilistic generalization, they are useful to study problems in depth, to understand the stages in processes, or to understand situations in context (Greene & David, 1984; Yin, 1989). Other practice professions such as medicine, law, and business have long used case studies for research and teaching. Case studies have provided the basis for the development of psychotherapy (Kazdin, 1981), for the science of cognitive development as pioneered by Piaget (1951, 1952, 1954), and the science of human behavior (Garmezy, 1982). The foundation work for family therapy and family sociology was based on case studies (Gilgun, Daly, & Handel, 1992; Handel, 1991). This article defines the case study, presents guidelines for evaluating case studies, and shows the relevance of case studies to social work research. The guidelines for evaluation also provide guidelines for developing and interpreting case studies. The application of these guidelines will result in case studies that meet the rigorous standards of scientific research and are useful to social work practitioners. Background Definitions Case Study. The case study is an intensive investigation of a single unit (Handel, 1991; Runyan, 1982; Yin, 1989). Most case studies involve the examination of multiple variables. The interaction of the unit of study with its context is a significant part of the investigation. Examples include life history research on individual lives in context and thick description (Geertz, 1973, p. 6) ethnographies of social settings. Thickly described case studies take multiple perspectives into account and attempt to understand the influences of multilayered social systems on subjects' perspectives and behaviors. However, some case studies, such as single case evaluations as commonly practiced (Bloom & Fischer, 1983; Hersen & Barlow, 1984), look at a few variables measured over time and virtually ignore context. The defining characteristic of a case study, then, is its focus on an individual unit. The unit of study may be an individual person (Cooper, 1990; Fraiberg, 1981; Kivnick, 1988), but case studies can be done of other units such as a family (Davis & Reid, 1988), a treatment team (Gilgun, 1988), a segment of a clinical session (Sands, 1988), police in patrol cars (Ferraro, 1989), a community (Eckert, 1980), or a country (Ozawa, 1985). Case study research also can investigate multiple individual units (Gilgun, in press; Gilgun & Connor, 1989; Vera, 1990). Idiographic versus Nomothetic Research. Case studies are idiographic, meaning a single unit is studied, multiple variables are investigated, and generalizing is analytic rather than statistical and probabilistic (Runyan, 1982; Silverstein, 1988). In analytic generalization, findings extracted from a single case are tested for their fit with other cases and with patterns predicted by theory or with previous research and theory (Campbell, 1979; Gilgun, 1992; Yin, 1989). Researchers can argue for the generality of findings when findings are based on a wide variety of cases and are congruent with related research and theory (Gilgun, 1991, 1994; Green & David, 1984; Kazdin, 1981). Still, there is no guarantee that a set of findings will fit any other cases except those on which the findings have been constructed; the next case may contradict previous findings. Case study findings, then, are open-ended, subject to revision when they do not fit new cases. Idiographic research often is contrasted with nomothetic research, in which a few variables are investigated using groups of subjects. …