Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Background: Occupational therapists face many challenges in evidencing their impact and evaluating the complexity of practice including resource constraints, capability and capacity issues. Case study research may offer a potential solution. To date, however, research on the use of case study research within occupational therapy has been anecdotal or limited to a specific type of case study research, which has added to a lack of clarity on what case study research is. There is a need for high-quality, evidence-informed studies that explore what case study research is and how it can be used to contribute to the evidence-base. Whilst literature on case study research is growing in the complex intervention field, there is limited research specific to occupational therapy and no research has yet considered practitioner perceptions of it. This body of work aims to address this gap by building capability for the use of case study research in contributing to the occupational therapy evidence-base. Methodology: This thesis uses a multi-method methodology, consisting of two studies and is underpinned by pragmatism. A scoping review explored the range and characteristics of case study research methodologies used to contribute to the evidence-base for occupational therapy. A search of opinion, text and empirical studies from 2016 onwards within an occupational therapy context was carried out using the Joanna Briggs Institute method. A qualitative appreciative inquiry study explored occupational therapists’ perceptions of case study research and co-created resources to increase the capability for the conduct of case study research in occupational therapy practice. University ethical approval was granted and eight occupational therapists with a range of practice experience were recruited from a Scottish Health Board. Data collection consisted of six online appreciative inquiry workshops, including methods of group discussion, break-out groups and whiteboard activities. Collaborative software MURAL was also used for the co-creation of resources using idea generation, prioritisation and prototyping creative group activities. Data was analysed in Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software using reflexive thematic analysis. Findings: The scoping review identified 88 studies consisting of 84 empirical and four non-empirical papers. Findings suggested case study research has been conducted globally, adopted quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods designs and were used across a range of occupational therapy settings. It identified methodological inconsistencies, particularly identifying the ‘case’. This led to the development of a novel conceptual model and definition for case study research in occupational therapy. Four themes were generated from the appreciative inquiry study; understanding case study research as similar to practice, the benefits of case study research create buy-in, embedding case study research into practice and co-created resources for capability building. Practitioners co-created a video resource explaining the GAS-light outcome measure, an overview of training for case study research in practice and case examples. Overall findings suggest practitioners perceived case study research to be of value to practice but it also highlighted broader issues about the use of outcome measures and professional identity within occupational therapy practice. Conclusion: Case study research appears to be viable for developing the occupational therapy evidence-base, particularly when large scale inquiry is not appropriate. It is perceived positively by practitioners due to its perceived similarity to practice however the feasibility of collecting case data in practice with a larger sample requires exploration to substantiate these findings.

The paper maps the value of case study in management research. In particular, it deals with the paradigmatic aspects of case study as a research strategy. In order to analyse the convergence and divergence on different dimensions of the case study research, I focus on three well-known methodology experts, namely Robert Yin, Sharan Merriam and Robert Stake. I argue that case study is a comprehensive research strategy. It has the capacity to embrace paradigm plurality representing both inductive and deductive strategies. Because of its epistemological, ontological and methodological flexibility case study has become one of the established research approaches in management. There is no fixed set of methods for the case study research. This depends on the ontological presuppositions of the researchers. The significance of the ontology becomes apparent depending on the nature of the case and the types of the research questions. As case study research is reflexive, flexible and context-specific, it allows emerging contexts to shape methods. That is why it can act as a bridge across the research paradigms. I then look at the considerable influence that the case study approach has on the management research, i.e., the role for case study in the research process. Because of its overarching role, multi-paradigmatic approach can be adopted under case study research. Case study research is, in practice a varied methodology with paradigmatic pluralism covering an array of research methods and techniques and different levels of analysis.

Case Study Research

The conceptualisation of 'good' medical education research as hypothesis testing to identify universal truths that are generalisable across contexts has been challenged. Joining this conversation, the field of health professions education research is complex and contextual and there are ways of examining and reporting locally based activities and innovations, which can be of general value. This position leads to a focus on case study research (CSR), inquiry bound in time and place that generates thick descriptions and close interpretations to reach explanations. CSR has grown in sophistication in recent years and can inform practice and advance the science of medical and health professions education. The authors evaluated the current state of the science of CSR in the medical education literature by identifying and reviewing 160 papers. Most articles presented as 'case studies' were not in fact CSR. Moreover, most articles failed to go beyond a 'we did this' account. The authors explore definitions of CSR, and they examine dominant CSR methodologists, Yin, Stake and Merriam, and their respective approaches to CSR. They then set out some of the basic tenets of CSR (case definition, methods of data collection and analysis) and consider the logics of CSR (its structures, purposes, assumptions and symbols). CSR challenges are considered next (such as emic and etic perspectives; ethical complexities; generalisability; quality; and reporting and reflexivity). The authors conclude that context is a mechanism, which needs to be understood, and rigorous CSR provides the structures and criticality to do so, opening up new areas of understanding and inquiry.

This chapter is a systematic literature review of case studies focused on economic diplomacy from the field of International Relations and International Political Economy. It examines 19 case studies looking at descriptive characteristics and content. The idea is to contribute to knowledge on the implementation of case study methodology as well as understand how IR and IPE use the methodology to study economic diplomacy. Moreover, it provides a discussion of the concept of economic diplomacy and instructions for case study implementation. The analysis follows three pillars: Focus, Implementation and Reporting. The findings indicate that although there is widespread use of case study in researching economic diplomacy, there is little discussion on the benefits of using the methodology, rather the usage of case studies is taken for granted and often implemented without following systematic procedures. The findings also indicate the need for more research on economic diplomacy and development.

This paper provides a discussion on how case study research fits into the bigger picture of theory building in the social sciences. In particular, it discusses how case study research, as opposed to more classical quantitative (often statistical) approaches contribute to the progression of collective learning in science. As such, for arguments sake, in this paper these approaches (i.e. qualitative vs. quantitative) are put into a competitive relationship. It is acknowledged that such competitive relationship does not exist in theory, as they are often considered to be complementary, but in practice qualitative research is often more difficult to publish; and tends to be more difficult to defend. Therefore the authors believe there is a need to better recognise the role of case study research in the scientific process; and in light of recent development in participatory modelling to collectively re-evaluate how case study research contributes to the progression of scientific learning? The deductive statistical approach in social science, as it was defined in a classic exchange of articles and ideas by mathematician Bernoulli and Galton in the 18 th century is to ascertain a posteriori through knowledge based on experience, in situations when we cannot determine a “priori” (independent of experience) by statistical analysis of a number of similar instances. This assumes events in the future will follow a similar pattern as in the past, and relies on several important assumptions which may inherently limit applicability. Firstly, the output of “priori” calculations is invariably correlations of relationship similarities rather than identified as causative factors. Secondly, the assumption of “similar conditions” is problematic because by definition this requires causal surmise and cannot be ascertained purely through statistical calculations. Consequently, social science research based on statistics alone is incomplete and requires causal explanations, suggesting the need for theoretical formulations. Whilst there are modern statistical techniques to alleviate some of these issues, such as capture-recapture, jack-knife and bootstrap; this shows that social science based on statistics alone is incomplete but requires causal explanations which in turn require the formulation of theory. Conversely, inductive case study research has been criticized largely for being unable to result in laudable generalisations. The authors suggest case studies are suitable for developing human understanding of issues, and producing context dependent knowledge necessary for the formulation of theory. Specifically, case study research can be used for abductive reasoning whereby hypothetical explanations, A, of observations are found that are sufficient but do not necessarily explain observations B. Traditional scientific method would dictate that such a theory is tested using empirical falsification, but this is not always possible due to difficulties of observation. It is clear that the research process requires both (inductive) case study research as well as (deductive) statistical approaches. Furthermore, there is a need for a trained mind to synthesize the results and develop and choose the “best” theory / model to explain observations (abductive reasoning). Participatory modelling with its mix of qualitative and quantitative methods places it within two major paradigms: generalisation via theory and statistics vs. context specific knowledge via case study. The question is whether participatory modelling can be the bridge between two main paradigms, by allowing for the development of general theories through the immersion of oneself in the specific. Limitations to possible applications remain, as participatory modelling is usually warranted and feasible only in certain cases, and is ethically dependant on circumstance. The authors argue that participatory modelling has not been developed with these purposes in mind, but serves merely as a thought provoking exemplar that is hopefully paving the way for the next generation of research methods. If this is to be the case, participatory modelling requires a strong theoretical foundation considering its place in epistemology and scientific method.

The practice of innovation management is developing fast. As new concepts emerge, exploratory studies are needed and case study research is often appropriate. To investigate the usage and quality of case study research in innovation management, all of the articles published in five top journals over 20 years (1997–2016) were reviewed. Case study research accounted for 818 of the published articles in this period (12%) and an evaluation template (termed case study evaluation template: CASET) was developed to objectively assess these articles against 10 quality criteria. It was found that the quality of case study research has often been low, although it has improved over time. Similarly, quality was found to fluctuate both within and between the different innovation journals. This indicates that the peer review process for case study research is not as robust as it should be. The assessment of individual articles using the evaluation template found significant deficiencies. Many articles: did not justify why case study research was appropriate; did not apply theoretical sampling criteria; were not transparent on how conclusions were drawn from the data; did not consider validity and reliability adequately; and did not go beyond description in their interpretation. However, the evaluation template also identified 23 “exemplary studies,” which clearly addressed nearly every criterion. Such exemplary studies provide innovation management researchers with “benchmark” reading, which can help shape their own research. This article makes four contributions to the innovation management discipline. First, the evaluation template and exemplary studies can help innovation researchers improve the quality of their case study research. Second, clear recommendations are given for how reviewers can use the template to make the peer review process more consistent and robust. Third, journal editors are encouraged to consider the implications of the findings for their particular journal. Fourth, the article should stimulate a long overdue debate on methodology in innovation management research, including the use of case study research.

Case study research (CSR) has gained strong acceptance in information systems (IS) research in the recent decades. This article examines how CSR has been used in IS research practice. Contrasting the currently used CSR approaches to methodological prescriptions can lead to recommendations for researchers applying this research strategy as well as to advances in the methodological literature. Our study design comprises two steps. First, we identified case studies published in six major IS journals from 2001 to 2010. Second, we critically examined CSR practices in the identified studies. We observed a dualism, as CSR currently consists of a positivist and an equally strong interpretive research stream. Case studies with other philosophical underpinnings were rarely found. We describe the CSR practice and contrast it to the methodological prescriptions. Thereby, we clearly point out the shortcomings, aiming to initiate a debate on how our community should further develop its use of CSR to become more mindful. This study is the first broad examination of CSR in IS (focusing on more than just the positivist research stream) and thus contributes to the methodological literature by providing recommendations for improvements.

Introduction: It is now well-documented that the organisation of care delivery for adults living with chronic conditions is suboptimal. Therefore, many healthcare systems in OECD countries are implementing whole-system changes to try to improve the health, the individual healthcare experience and efficiency of the population (also known as “Triple Aim”). In Belgium, bottom up programmes of integrated care for people living with chronic conditions will start to include patients in June 2017. While targeting the Triple Aim, programmes are also expected to improve the wellbeing of care providers and target equity. As part of a global evaluation of the programmes, this paper presents the protocol of the implementation study, to evaluate the implementation of those programmes, in their diverse contexts.The programmes: Twenty programmes are expected to design system changes at the micro and meso-level, as they will include populations from 100000 to 200000 persons, for which components of integrated care will be implemented at several levels. At the micro-level, this includes patient empowerment, support to the informal caregiver, case management, socio-professional (re)integration and prevention. At the meso (i.e. loco-regional) level, components target interactions and governance between providers. This includes negotiation and coordination, seamless care, valuing the experience of patient organisations, integrated patient files, multidisciplinary guidelines, development of a culture of quality. To support this governance at the loco-regional level, adaption of financing, change management and risk and resources stratification of the population are expected. Because of their design and embeddedness, those programmes can be seen as complex adaptive systems (CAS,(1)).Evaluation method: To evaluate the implementation process of the CAS, we will use a realist approach, which aims at responding to the questions about how, for whom and why the implementation of those programmes will reach the expected outcomes - or not (2). Guided by the RAMESES II framework, the first step was to choose an initial theory, explaining the logic of the implementation (3). A first choice of the multidisciplinary research team was to use the Normalisation Process Theory (4), which provides a good starting point to explain how the elasticity of the context may influence the coherence, cognitive participation, action and reflexion of the actors involved at the micro, meso and macro level. This theory will be tested and refined by the means of a multiple, embedded case study (5, 6). Stakeholders involved in the refining and maybe adjudicating between rival theories, include members of the research team (sociologists, nurses, doctors and economists), programme coordinators and their local partners, during a three-year lasting, iterative process, using data about the process and the impact of those programmes.Expected results: First, a thick and narrative description of each pilot programme in its local context, about the decisive drivers of success or non-success of the implementation of the programme. Second, an explanatory mid-range theory about the drivers of integrated care programmes, in order to allow theoretical replication.Discussion: Focusing on underlying mechanisms “in situation”, we will aim at unearthing generative causality. Identified mechanisms will be contextualised, i.e. mechanisms which are only triggered under specific conditions or in specific contexts and lead to specific outcomes.

This paper discusses the case study of the new research and education framework applied at the School of Design at Northumbria University that aims at building an integrated sustainable design research community. This community concerns itself with developing design value propositions (new methods, new knowledge and new design IDEAS or applications) by combining the three broad domains of the discipline (forms of practice): practice through collaboration (new methods), discovery through research (new knowledge), and new solutions through engagement (new products, and services). In both academic and commercial context, this also culminates into a purposeful learning for all stakeholders. The authors explain that the methodological gap between design 'doers' and design scholars in an academic context makes the process of design leadership very difficult. This paper discusses the paradox that design in the academia needs to respond to the conflict between learning through doing (design) and learning through research of design. Additionally, this paper highlights the challenges that the School of Design at Northumbria came across while establishing this research community and also discusses everyday challenges of maintaining this community.

Case study research though increasingly popular in social sciences for positivist and intrepretivist research, a kind of confusion is prevalent when it is used ignoring its philosophical position. Arguably, the case study research is considered more appropriate for qualitative research because of its foremost strength ˗ the in-depth study of complex issues. This paper, drawing from the literature, discusses the philosophical position of case study research and argues that qualitative case study research is appropriate for theory building. For theory building, this paper follows the inductive approach guided by qualitative research paradigm and argues that it is not appropriate to assess theory building from the perspective of quantitative research. Very similar to other research methods, it is natural that the case study research has certain challenges; however, most of the challenges and misunderstandings overlap causing difficulty to understand the role of case study research. Hence, this paper aims to contribute to the understandings of the challenges and misunderstandings associated with the theory building from case study research. This paper argues that most of the challenges associated with theory building from case study can be addressed employing appropriate research strategies particularly clear understanding of philosophical stance and selection of appropriate case. The misunderstandings, on the other hand, are arisen due to the differences in the researcher’s perspectives particularly positivistic thinking of them rather than the shortcomings inherent in the qualitative case study research design.

The problem and the solution. This chapter overviews case study research and proposes a manner in which case study research can contribute to theory building in applied disciplines. Although theory building using case study research has been discussed previously in the literature, there is no clarity as to how case study research can be used to build theory. Moreover, it should not be assumed that there is clarity on the processes of case writing, case studies, or case study research. This chapter presents definitions, purposes, and elements of case study research for the purpose of understanding how case study research can be used to build theory in applied disciplines.

Chapter 7 - Case study research in information systems

PurposeThis study aims to examine how case study research has been applied in the field of human resource development (HRD).Design/methodology/approachThe authors examined HRD case study research by analyzing 118 refereed, empirical case study articles published between 2000 and 2020 in three Academy of HRD-sponsored journals.FindingsFindings suggest that case studies have an established place in HRD research. The disciplinary convention has been exploratory case studies, which, to a greater extent, draw on single-case research designs. When examining the proportion of case study articles in relation to all empirical, peer-refereed publications in the journals, the authors found a slight decline in case study research publications in recent years. The results of our post hoc exploratory analysis indicate that HRD case study research that contributes to theory development by eliciting concepts and their relationships is likely to receive more scholarly attention than case studies that provide rich descriptions of the phenomenon. The results also suggest that it is rather case study’s contribution to theory than selected features of case study that attracts scholars’ attention.Originality/valueThe study identified several approaches to conducting case study research that have received less attention by HRD researchers. The authors encourage HRD researchers to expand their repertoire of case study approaches. The authors also provide recommendations addressing the issues of methodological self-awareness, rigor and transparency in case study research.

In this paper the authors propose a more precise and encompassing definition of case study than is usually found. They support their definition by clarifying that case study is neither a method nor a methodology nor a research design as suggested by others. They use a case study prototype of their own design to propose common properties of case study and demonstrate how these properties support their definition. Next, they present several living myths about case study and refute them in relation to their definition. Finally, they discuss the interplay between the terms case study and unit of analysis to further delineate their definition of case study. The target audiences for this paper include case study researchers, research design and methods instructors, and graduate students interested in case study research.