CASE STUDY AND CROSS-CASE

ANALYSIS

Methodological WorkshopFalon Deimler

Definition of a case:An intensive description and analysis of a single individual (also known as life histories), group, community, or event within its real-world context

Case Study Methodology

CS Key Components: Design

Types & uses of case study based on purpose strategic selection explaining the case

vs elaborating theory Frame/design

feature Single or

multipleHolistic or embedded

Researcher’s role

CS Key Components: Theory Development

Developing a theoretical perspective in conjunction with other tasks

Build, extend, or challenge perspectives – but may limit ability to make discoveries

Protocol: mental framework/line of inquiry

CS Key Components: Data Collection Mixed methods opportunities

Direct or participant observation, survey, interview, statistics, archival record/physical artifact analysis, etc.

Triangulation Three or more independent sources point to

same set of events, facts, or interpretations Rival explanations

Are events and actions as they appear to be? Are participants giving candid responses?

CS Key Components: Data Analysis Pattern-Matching

Internal validity Explanation-Building

Causal links – “how” and “why” questions Time-series Analysis

Simple or Complex Chronology

Logic Models Chain of events; repeated cause-effect-cause-

effect patterns Cross-Case Synthesis/Replication Logic

(multiple case studies)

CS Key Components: Communicating Findings

Avoid mixing evidence and interpretation Social usefulness

Historical context, implications for practice

Case Study Methodology

Exemplars Theoretical and

methodological robustness Innovation Challenge theoretical

assumptions Study rare phenomena Explanatory power “Doubleness” Social usefulness/praxis Ethical/value-laden

Difficulty drawing definite cause-effect conclusions

“N of 1” problem = Generalizing from a single case?

Biases in collection and interpretation of data

Researcher’s own “methodological savvy”

Advantages Limitations

Definition:A scientifically rigorous methodology adapted

from cross-case synthesis (Yin) that seeks to “[mobilize] case knowledge” through the use of theory, methodological and data source triangulation, rules of evidence, and systematic case study protocols and databases to ensure consistent/reliable data collection

Cross-Case Analysis Methodology

CCA Key Components: Techniques

Variable-oriented cross-case comparison Outcomes observed vary in cases Randomness & representation

Mills’ Methods (1843) Comparative method of agreement/disagreement

Case Survey (Yin 1994, 2003) Evidence from large set of cases for statistical

analyses Before-After research design

Case divided into two sub-cases; before/after investigation

CCA Key Components: Techniques cont.

Case-oriented cross-case comparison Commonalities across multiple instances of phenomenon

contributes to conditional generalizations Most Different Design (Przeworski and Teune, 1982

Similar processes/outcomes in diverse sets of cases Typologies (Denzin, 1989; George and Bennett, 2005)

Clusters or families of phenomena that share patterns Multicase Methods (Stake, 2006)

Quintain: a common focus for a set of case studies with both common and unique issues

Process-Tracing (George & Bennett, 2005) Trace progression of events that may have led to

outcome in a single case to map out one or more causal paths

CCA Key Components: Techniques cont.

Mixed data display and analysis techniques Combination of variable and case-oriented approach Visualize sets of cases, help relationships surface

Stacking (Miles and Huberman, 1994) Series of cases displayed in meta-matrix for

systematic visualization and comparison Qualitative Comparative Analysis-QCA (Ragin,

1993) Relationships arranged in “truth table” by variable to

study common causes/outcomes; conjunctions used to local relationships

Constructing Narrative Models (Goldstone, 1997) Encapsulates case as a storyline to preserve essence

Five Steps for Cross-Case Study Methodology

Developing a theory of change Establishing a measurement framework Developing a cross-case study protocol

and building a database Analyzing and interpreting findings Communicating results

Five Steps for Cross-Case Study Methodology: Developing a Theory of Change

Represents a complex hypothesis to be tested

Measure of internal validity Analytic generalization

Conceptual claim of relationships btw concepts, constructs, event sequences

Apply theoretical propositions to outside case study

Community and systems change efforts Which strategies lead to what outcomes at

which levels?

Five Steps for Cross-Case Study Methodology: Establishing a Measurement Framework

Mixed methods and multiple data sources Reveal converging/diverging patterns Increase confidence in interpretation Tell the story

Triangulation to address construct validity “Sophisticated and rigorous”

Five Steps for Cross-Case Study Methodology: Developing a Cross-Case Study Protocol and Building a Database

Protocol Ensures systematic collection and analysis procedures

across cases Makes explicit

How and when data will be collected How data will be stored, managed, analyzed, interpreted,

and reported Who will review drafts The format for reporting the findings The rules of evidence Procedures

Database System for organizing and storing data

Five Steps for Cross-Case Study Methodology: Analyzing and Interpreting Findings

Attend to all evidence Codify data, identify a pattern, determine a

theme, draw inferences within a case Capture emergent themes Document frequency (triangulation) Chain of evidence Address major rival interpretations

Five Steps for Cross-Case Study Methodology: Communicating the Results

Use own prior knowledge to articulate awareness

Usefulness for wide audience Present data in stakeholders’ terms Preserve uniqueness of cases; avoid

contextual stripping

Cross Case Analysis

More intensive examination of phenomenon across a number of cases

Telling a story Visual display

facilitates comparison: “comparability” or “translatability”

Advancing community and systems change

Tensions between particularistic case knowledge and multiple case study research

Destruction of integrity Generalizations as

half-lives Fluid environments

Advantages Limitations

Cross-Case Analysis: Example

CORE ELEMENTS:

• Systems Approach

• Community Collaboration

• Prevention• Intervention

Safe Start Demonstration Project A community and systems

change effort to address issues related to young children’s exposure to violence and the adverse outcomes on their development

Eleven communities (urban, tribal, rural)

Example: Theory of Change

Example: Establish Measurement Framework

Example: Developing Protocol and Database

Protocol How and when Which instrument to use How data will be stored

and managed How data will be

analyzed and interpreted

How findings will be reported

How findings will be used

Protocol• Letter to proj director, email

and call to interviewees• Checklist, interview guides• Interviews transcribed and

stored within 5 days• Codes assigned to data

sources• Glossary of terms, outlines• Inform devo of training

agendasDatabase• Built for each site, every document given a

unique label, list of all documents and identifiers generated

Example: Analysis and Interpretation of Findings

Codified every piece of data relevant to components and linkages in theory of change

Themes validated by repeated comparison Case became a unit of analysis for cross-case

with analytical strategy and pattern-matching technique

Identified common strategies, activities, and community conditions that led to higher numbers of children served

Identified unique elements that affected outcomes in different sites

Example: Communicating Results

Organized to demonstrate how change process proceeded – interlaced data to support themes and conclusions

Cross case as core of final report, 11 case studies included as an appendix

What are some of the defined boundaries (historical, spatial, etc.) of the context/issue?What theories (theory of change, techniques/approaches) were used to frame the study? Does this frame seem at all limiting? What methods of data collection and analysis were used? Were these methods best suited for maximizing the “social usefulness” and reliability of the study?What differences are there in the potential “uses” of the single case studies conducted initially vs. the cross-case analysis?Does the cross-case analysis appear to threaten the integrity of the cases, strip the cases of their context, or over-generalize?Additional questions regarding this design?

Exercise 1 & Discussion

http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/334/729#g5

Exercise 2 & Reflection

References Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive interactionism. In Gareth Morgan (Ed.), Beyond methods:

Strategies for social research (pp.129-146). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed

again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. George, A.L. & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social

sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Goldstone, J.A. (1997). Methodological issues in comparative macrosociology. Great Britain: JAI

Press. Hodgetts, D. J., & Stolte, O. E. E. (2012). Case-based research in community and social

psychology:Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 22(5), 379-389.

Kahn, S. & VanWynsberghe, R. (2009). Cultivating the under-mined: Cross-Case Analysis as Knowledge Mobilization. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(1).

Kegler, M.C., Rigler, J., and Honeycutt, S. (2011). The role of community context in planning and implementing community-based health promotion projects. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34(3): 246-253.

Lee, K. S., & Chavis, D. M. (2012). Cross-case methodology: Bringing rigour to community and systems change research and evaluation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 22(5), 428- 438. doi:10.1002/casp.1131

Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mills, J.S. (1843). A system of logic. London: John W. Parker. Przeworski, A. & Teune, H. (1982). The logic of comparative social inquiry. Malabar, FL: Robert E.

Krieger Publishing Co. Ragin, C. (1993). Introduction to qualitative comparative analysis. In Thomas Janoski & Alexander

Hicks (Eds.), The comparative political economy of the welfare state (pp.299-319). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Stake, R. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Stoecker, R. (1991). Evaluating and rethinking the case study. The Sociological Review, 39(1), 88-

112. Yin, R. (2012). A very brief refresher on the case study method. Ch. 1 in Applications of Case Study

Research, 3rd ed. Sage Publications, Inc. Yin, R. (2014). Analyzing case study evidence: How to start your analysis, your analytic choices,

and how they work. Ch 5 in Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th Ed. Sage Publications, Inc.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.