Case Study: Logic

Konvitz J W 1987 Cartography in France 16601848: Science, Engineering, and Statecraft. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Lewis G M 1986 Indicators of unacknowledged assimilations from Amerindian maps on Euro-American maps of North America. Imago Mundi 38: 934 Lewis G M 1993 Metrics, geometries, signs, and language: sources of cartographic miscommunication between native and Euro-American cultures in North America. Cartographica 30(1): 98106 Lewis G M (ed.) 1998 Cartographic Encounters: Perspecti es on Nati e American Mapmaking and Map Use. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Lowenthal M A (ed.) 1998 Whos Who in the History of Cartography: The International Guide to the Subject (D9). Map Collector Publications Ltd. for Imago Mundi Ltd., Tring, UK Monmonier M 1989 Maps With The News: The De elopment of American Journalistic Cartography. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Robinson A H 1982 Early Thematic Mapping in the History of Cartography. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Ruggles R I 1991 A Country So Interesting: The Hudsons Bay Company and Two Centuries of Mapping, 16701870. McGillQueens University Press, Montreal. Selin H (ed.) 1997 Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands Skelton R A 1972 Maps: A Historical Sur ey of Their Study and Collecting. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Sobel D 1995 Longitude. Walker and Co., New York Twyman M 1982 The graphic presentation of language. Information Design Journal 3(1): 122 Wallis H M, Robinson A H (eds.) 1987 Cartographic Inno ations: An International Handbook of Mapping Terms to 1900. Map Collector Publications, Tring, UK in association with the International Cartographic Association Wanru C, Xihuang Z, Shengzhang H, Zhongxun N, Jincheng R, Deyuan J (eds.) 1990 An Atlas of Ancient Maps in China From the Warring States Period to the Yuan Dynasty (476 BCAD 1368). Cultural Relics Publishing House, Beijing Woodward D 1977 The All-American Map: Wax Engra ing and its Inuence on Cartography. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Woodward D, Lewis G M (eds.) 1998 The History of Cartography Vol. 2, book 3, Cartography in the Traditional African, American, Arctic, Australian, and Pacic Societies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

data collection will be used to assemble a wide range of information about the case. One of the main benets of a wide-range of data is that it permits a triangulation of research methods, thus, providing substantial verication of the particular phenomenon in question. Researchers vary in why they choose to study a single case, but most often they do so in order to examine a proposed theory or to provide grounded and detailed information for a new theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967). Although many quantitative researchers consider the case study as a limited form of analysis, especially by comparison with methods that collect information on a large sample of instances, such a conclusion misconstrues fundamentally the main purpose of the case study. The analyst who selects and studies a single case, or even a handful of cases, is not primarily interested in statistical inference to a larger population of units, but rather in theoretical analysis and inference. Nevertheless, the ndings from the study of a single case, like those from the study of a large sample of instances, always are to be regarded as tentative, awaiting further conrmation from additional studies of parallel theoretical cases.

2. Why Study the Single Case?

The intensive analysis of the case study is premised on the special advantages that it furnishes. First, the study of single cases enables the researcher to probe a particular question, or phenomenon, in great detail. Such in-depth examinations ultimately permit the researcher to acquire a degree of knowledge about the case that is typically impossible through the examination of a large number of cases. Moreover, such indepth work also enables the researcher to pursue the examination of alternative theoretical ideas, thus ultimately arriving not merely at a thorough understanding of the empirical facts, but ideally a careful and correct appreciation of the most germane and eective theoretical argument to t these facts (Campbell 1975). Second, by studying a single case the researcher is able to take full account of the social, or historical, context of the phenomenon in question. Students of case studies regard context as essential to understanding the nature of the phenomenon. Take, for example, the study of children who are unruly in the classroom. The investigator may believe that such unruliness is the product of how the child relates both to his peers and teacher in the context of classroom activity. In order to appreciate and to fully understand the nature of the childs reactions, the investigator is compelled to study the child in the classroom situation (Stake 1995). Third, the study of the single case permits the researcher to probe comprehensively into the empirical data at hand. In the study of the workings of a single community, for example, the case study researcher can 1509

G. M. Lewis

Case Study: Logic

1. The Case Study Dened
The case study is a research strategy with special implications for theoretical analysis and data collection. A single case of a particular phenomenon is examined intensively for the light that it can shed on a specic problem or question. Often several methods of

Case Study: Logic explore a variety of dimensions of the community and can thereby create a multidimensional, or holistic, sense of the community rather than, let us say, a unidimensional one based upon its size or territorial breadth. In so doing the researcher can also emerge with a fuller understanding of the case in question by fashioning an integrated portrait of the case into which the various pieces, or dimensions, t. Fourth, the case study provides boundaries to the nature of the phenomenon under investigation. The case is chosen because it represents a self-contained unit that will permit the researcher to investigate the phenomenon in isolation from other forces. Thus, educational researchers will often investigate a single classroom or school because such a case represents some unusual qualities in which they are interested (Stake 1995). Finally, the single case is sometimes chosen because it represents a special illustration of the phenomenon under investigation. Sometimes it is portrayed as the exception to the rule, or deviant case, thereby permitting the observer to understand some more general phenomenon in greater depth. studies were often in-depth studies of particular social roles, designed to explore the nature of such roles. Other famous case studies have been done of entire cities, including the range of dierent people and organizations in such cities. More recently, social researchers have studied specic organizations using the case study format; specic locales designed to understand the nature of social groups in those locales; and even specic indi iduals whose traits exemplify special qualities for investigation (Stake 1995). In addition, the case is sometimes used very eectively to explore in rich detail the nature of social processes at work. One of the best illustrations of using the case study in this manner was done by the political scientist, Matthew Crenson (1971). He furnished a number of important insights into the nature and exercise of power, including the dynamics of agenda-setting, simply from the study of how political decisions were made in a single city.

4. The Case Study as a Strategy of Research

By comparison with other research methods, the case study has certain limitations. It does not permit the easy and rened manipulation of variables in the same way as an experiment does. Nor does it permit a researcher to investigate various congurations of variables that might be associated with particular outcomes, or dependent variables, like the sample survey. Most often, the case study is done using qualitative methods, thus resulting in some confusion between case studies and qualitative research (Merriam 1998). Yet there are important examples in which quantitative data also have been collected to provide key information about the single case. For example, some researchers have used time series data on a single country to examine it in depth. 4.1 The Case Study as an Inducti e Tool The case study has proven most useful for the generation of new theory. Because a single case can be examined in great depth, and because it can be studied with a variety of research tools, researchers can mine it for a great deal of information. At the same time, the careful examination of such information can furnish insights not easily acquired by other research methods. Therefore the case study is perhaps at its strongest when it is used as an inductive research instrument, allowing the researcher to construct an explanation for the phenomenon under investigation (Glaser and Strauss 1967). 4.2 The Case Study as a Deducti e Tool Yet, the study of the single case can also furnish an important tool for those observers who wish to test, or apply, deductive theories. One of the most famous

3. How to Choose Cases

Great care must be exercised in the choice of the single case. Sometimes social scientists believe that any case may be used to explore a particular phenomenon. Indeed, there appears to have been a great deal of faulty case study research because there are few guidelines by which to select the case. In fact, the choice must always involve certain critical decisions in advance of the data collection and analysis. First and foremost, the researcher must decide the grounds for selecting a particular unit for study. Since such selection is never based upon issues of statistical inference, the theoretical reasons for selecting the case must always be made clearor, at least, as clear as possiblein advance of the research. For example, the sociologist R. Stephen Warner believed that broad societal changes might have a deep inuence on the life of churches in America. Thus, he chose to focus on a single church, and to examine how the internal organization of the church changed over several decades during which there was marked change in American society. Second, the researcher should choose those cases that will furnish the clearest tests of the theory, or argument, in question. If a researcher is interested in the causes of revolution, then a society should be chosen where there has been a substantial and marked revolution, to examine the possible causes. 3.1 What Qualies as a Case? Unlike certain forms of research method, such as the sample survey, case study research can employ very dierent units of analysis on which to focus its theoretical attention. The earliest examples of case 1510

Case Study: Logic illustrations of this occurs in the classic study of the International Typographers Union (Lipset et al. 1956). The authors had concluded, both on empirical and theoretical grounds, that trade unions were characterized by very rigid and tightly closed political administrations, with one clique maintaining its rule in oce over a long period of time. They then chose deliberately to examine the ITU in detail, because it appeared to be the exception to the general situation. What was it about the ITU, they asked, that produced empirically disparate results from all other trade unions? This was a powerful, well-rened question. In eect, the ITU provided a comparison to all other cases: if its outcome was dierent, so too must have been the set of elements that brought about such an outcome. The answer, furnished through a variety of evidence, suggested that, because of their level of education, skill, and commitment to the ITU, union members of this union, as compared to others, simply were more likely to take an active role in union aairs. The one consideration that is overlooked in using the case study as a deductive tool is that researchers may fail to specify the nature of the null hypothesis, or the likely outcome if the theory is incorrect. While most case studies have failed to consider this important feature of theory construction and testing, Yin (1994) argues that, if done carefully, such a strategy can be incorporated easily into the analysis of single, and even multiple, cases. examination of a group of impoverished men, and how they adapted to life during the Great Depression. In fact, as Whyte so brilliantly showed, it really was a case study of a small group of men, and the way in which the nature of stratication emerged within the group, and how it inuenced the behavior of individuals. It was done with great insight and care by Whyte, making it still one of the best and most inuential case studies of all time.

6. Issues of Theoretical Specication: The Use of Singular Cases to Illuminate General Principles
Sometimes the study of the single case is done specically to reveal the importance of a special conguration, or conuence, of elements that together help to explain the unique outcome of a case, and its dierence from the general pattern (Campbell 1975). The logic underlying the analysts concern is that the set of variables together constitutes the sucient, perhaps even singular, explanation for a particular outcome, or eect. The research on the International Typographers Union by Lipset et al. (1956), for instance, pointed to the special conguration of conditions in the ITU that helped to promote internal democracy. It suggested that the special conuence of factors promoted democracy, leading to the obvious conclusion that only under certain special social and historical circumstances could such variables again come together in such a specic manner.

5. The Case Study: Seminal Illustrations

Over the years there have been a number of very signicant case studies. Two, in particular, illustrate the wide variety of uses to which case study analysis can be put in the study of social phenomena. One of the rst, and surely most famous, case studies was done of the city of Muncie, Indiana (Lynd and Lynd 1929). Conducted during the course of the 1920s, the investigators and their research team wanted to uncover the full nature of a typical American city over the course of its lifetime. Part of their work involved tracing the history of the city. A large part, however, involved the collection of a wide range of information on the citys current residents, organizations, and its internal workings. There were a variety of important discoveries, including discoveries about the nature of work life and religious life in the community, as well as about the dominance of a leading industrial family over the entire range of civic and political life of the community. It might be noted that sample surveys of city residents, or demographic data about them, would never have uncovered the full and complex portrait the Lynds were able to construct through their pioneering case study research. A second famous case study was done of men who lived in the South End of Boston ( Whyte 1943). This study, also conducted in the 1930s, was ostensibly an

7. Issues of Theoretical Generalization and Renement: The Use of Parallel and Dierent Cases
Because the analysis of a single case can only take the analyst so far, the best rule to follow, if possible, is to examine at least three or four pertinent cases in depth. Multiple cases permit the researcher to rene and develop theoretical arguments, and they do so precisely because case studies permit the researcher to examine cases deeply and, ultimately, to make careful comparisons among those cases. One example will illustrate the advantages of using several cases and examining them in depth. Orum (1995) was interested in examining various theories about the origins of urban growth. Popular theories had suggested that such growth came about because of special alliances among the leading gures in dierent major institutional spheres, particularly local government, business, and the media. Orum suggested that such theories were limited only to contemporary circumstances and that they did not help much to explain the sources of growth in the past. Using several dierent cases, and studying them in great depth permitted him to come up with several important discoveries bearing upon issues of urban growth and expansion. 1511

Case Study: Logic The rst case examined was that of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Tracing its origins back to the early nineteenth century, Orum discovered that the city seemed to go through certain stages in its growth, and that one could not simply rely on explanations of alliances among leaders of dierent institutional spheres. Thus, based upon intensive study, he argued that, in the earliest years, the growth of the city relied heavily on local entrepreneurs, people who promoted the city and who, among other things, sold land for it. But over time this motive force for growth changed, and the main forces turned to new economic institutions, ones that brought in growth by attracting new residents. A third stage happened when the impetus for growth shifted from the local economic enterprises, which had grown somewhat stagnant, to local government. Government sought to expand the community by adding new territory. Among other things, it also became clear in this stage that a single conception of urban growth was inappropriate; growth could take the form of new population, but also new territory. Such an insight would have been impossible had Orum relied only on the study of this single case in depth. The fourth and nal phase happened as the city began to decline. In large part, the decline took place when many of its original industries left for greener pastures in other cities. Under these circumstances, a heavy burden was placed upon local government to devise ways to promote growth, either by expanding its borders or by attracting new industry through various incentives. In eect, then, Orums explanation for Milwaukees growth suggested that such expansion happened by stages, and that at each stage there was a dierent conguration of local business and political forces responsible for such growth, and that the principal form of growth itself could vary between stages. Next, he asked whether this pattern held only for Milwaukee, or whether it could also describe the trajectory of growth and decline in other parallel industrial cities. Thus, he made comparisons in the pattern and stages of growth in Milwaukee with those in Cleveland, Ohio, a city which, on the face of it, seemed similar in many respects. In fact, the stages and forces of growth at each stage were virtually identical in Cleveland and Milwaukee. He thus argued that among American industrial cities, the nature of growth, and the forces responsible for it, showed important parallels, underscoring his argument on behalf of a stage theory of urban growth. Finally, Orum pushed the argument one step further, wondering whether the pattern found was only characteristic of industrial growth, and cities, in America. Could the pattern of stages also apply to cities that grew up in the postindustrial era and were themselves postindustrial cities? Here he made a comparison between the patterns in Milwaukee and those in Austin, Texas, a postindustrial city he also had come to know intimately. This comparison 1512 showed that the rst three stages were very similar in terms of the rapidity of growth, and in the role of entrepreneurs, local business, and local government in promoting such growth in Milwaukee and Austin alike. In the end, then, he rened his overall argument to suggest that the stage view of urban growth in America t not only industrial-era cities, but also cities in the postindustrial era. This suggested that there appeared to be an underlying structural pattern to the growth of American cities, regardless of era. This last comparison also enabled him to draw out dierences between Milwaukee and Austin, allowing for further understanding of the nature of urban growth, and dierence, in the United States. In brief, then, as the example of the various cities is intended to illustrate, the careful and systematic study of several cases can permit the researcher both to substantiate important theoretical generalizations and to rene and extend them. Again, this can be done because of the deep acquaintance the researcher gains from the study of cases, an acquaintance unlike that to be obtained with methods like surveys or experiments.

8. Conclusion
The use of a single case to develop, or to test, theoretical insights remains a very important strategy in the social sciences at the start of the twenty-rst century. Indeed, it would appear to be growing in signicance. But it must be executed with great care, and with a special sensitivity to theoretical issues. The major limitation in the study of the single case, or even a handful of cases, lies not in the limited number of empirical units, but in the ability of the researcher to be sensitive to issues of theory development and the gathering of relevant evidence to develop and rene that theory. See also: Case Study: Methods and Analysis; Caseoriented Research; HumanEnvironment Relationship: Comparative Case Studies; Psychotherapy: Case Study; Single-subject Designs: Methodology; Time Series: General

Bibliography
Bradshaw Y, Wallace M 1991 Informing generality and explaining uniqueness: The place of case studies in comparative research. International Journal of Comparati e Sociology 32(12): 15471 Campbell D T 1975 Degrees of Freedom and the case study. Comparati e Political Studies 8(2): 17893 Crenson M 1971 The Unpolitics of Air Pollution. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD Feagin J R, Orum A M, Sjoberg G (eds.) 1991 A Case for the Case Study. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC

Case Study: Methods and Analysis

Glaser B G, Strauss A L 1967 The Disco ery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitati e Research. Aldine, Chicago Lipset S M, Trow M, Coleman J S 1956 Union Democracy: the Internal Politics of the International Typographical Union. Free Press, Glencoe, IL Lynd R, Lynd H M 1929 Middletown: A Study in American Culture. Harcourt Brace, New York Merriam S B 1998 Qualitati e Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Orum A M 1995 City-Building in America. Westview Press, Boulder, CO Ragin C C, Becker H S (eds.) 1992 What Is A Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Ragin C, Zaret D 1983 Theory and method in comparative research: Two strategies. Social Forces 61(3): 73154 Stake R E 1995 The Art of Case Study Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Warner R S 1991 Oenology: The making of New Wine. In: Feagin J R, Orum A M, Sjoberg G (eds.) A Case for the Case Study. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, pp. 17499 Whyte W F 1943 Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Yin R K 1994 Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

increasingly clear through this process that the comparative advantages of case study and statistical methods are largely complementary and that the two methods can thus achieve far more scientic progress together than either could alone.

1. The Denition of Case and Case Study

Early eorts to dene case studies relied on distinctions between the study of a small vs. a large number of instances of a phenomenon. Case studies thus became characterized as small n studies, in contrast to large N statistical studies. Related to this, one early denition stated that a case is a phenomenon for which we report and interpret only a single measure on any pertinent variable (Eckstein 1975). Case study researchers have increasingly rejected this denition, however, because it wrongly implies, in the language of statistics, that there is an inherent degrees of freedom problem in case studies. In other words, this denition of case studies suggests that with a greater number of variables than observations on the dependent variable, case studies provided no basis for causal inference. In the view of case study researchers, however, each case includes a potentially large number of observations on intervening variables and qualitative measures of dierent aspects of the dependent variable, so there is not just a single measure of the variables or an inherent degrees of freedom problem. This point is increasingly recognized by researchers from the statistical tradition (King et al. 1994). In addition, the small n\large N distinction implies that large N methods are always preferable whenever sucient data is available. As argued below, however, case studies can serve useful theory building purposes, such as the inductive generation of new hypotheses, even when instances of a phenomenon are suciently numerous to allow the application of statistical methods. For present purposes, then, a case is dened as an instance of a class of e ents (George 1979 a, 1979 b). The term class of events refers here to a phenomenon of scientic interest, such as revolutions, types of governmental regime, kinds of economic system, or personality types. A case study is thus a well-dened aspect of a historical happening that the in estigator selects for analysis, rather than a historical happening itself. The Cuban Missile Crisis, for example, is a historical instance of many dierent classes of events: cases of deterrence, coercive diplomacy, crisis management, and so on. In deciding which class of events to study and which theories to use, the researcher decides what data from the Cuban Missile Crisis is relevant to their case study of it. Of course, even if one accepts the present denition of a case, there is still room in the context of particular studies to debate such questions as: what is this event a case of and given this phenomenon, is this event a case of it? (Ragin and Becker 1992). 1513

A. M. Orum

Case Study: Methods and Analysis

Case study methods have been around as long as recorded history, and they presently account for a large proportion of the books and articles in anthropology, biology, economics, history, political science, psychology, sociology, and even the medical sciences. The logic of case study methods, much like that of any historians or detectives eorts to make inferences from patterns within cases and comparisons between them, is more intuitive than the logic of statistical inference. Until relatively recently, however, the lack of formalization of the logic of case study methods inhibited them achieving their full potential for contributing to the progressive and cumulative development of theories. It is only in the last three decades that scholars have formalized case study methods and linked them to underlying arguments in the philosophy of science. Ironically, statistical methods, though less intuitive, were standardized earlier, so that attempts to formalize case study methods often misappropriated terms and concepts from statistics (McKeown 1999). More recently, case study methods have evolved from being dened negatively, via contrasts to statistical methods, to being dened positively, by their distinctive logic, techniques, and comparative advantages. This continuing evolution remains a contested process, but there is growing consensus on the proper procedures for carrying out case studies and the strengths and limits of such studies. It is becoming

Case Study: Methods and Analysis There is potential for confusion among the terms comparative methods, case study methods, and qualitative methods. In one view the comparative method, or the use of comparisons among a small number of cases, is distinct from the case study method, which in this view involves the internal examination of single cases (see Comparati e Studies: Method and Design). For the present purposes, however, case study methods are dened to include both within-case analysis of single cases and comparisons between or among a small number of cases. This is not an eort to claim wider meaning for the term case studies, but an outgrowth of the growing consensus that the strongest means of drawing inferences from case studies is the use of a combination of within-case analysis and cross-case comparisons within a single study or research program, although single case studies can also play a role in theory development. As for the term qualitative methods, this is sometimes used to encompass both case studies carried out with a positivist view of the philosophy of science and those implemented with a postmodern or interpretive view. This present article hews to the traditional terminology in focusing on case studies as that subset of qualitative methods that has adopted a largely positivist framework.
Table 1 Types of case studies Lijphart atheoretical interpretative hypothesis generating deviant theory-conrming\ inrming Eckstein congurative-ideographic disciplined-congurative heuristic ? crucial, most-likely, least-likely

2. The Historical De elopment of Case Study Methods

Case study methods have developed through several phases over the last three decades. Prior to the 1970s, case studies consisted primarily of historical studies of particular events, countries, or phenomena, with little eort to cumulate results or progressively develop theories (Verba 1967). Throughout the 1970s, however, scholars who were dissatised with the state of case study methods, and encouraged by the example of the formalization of statistical methods, began to formalize case study methods. First, Adam Przeworski and Henry Teune (1970) claried the logic of most similar and least similar case comparisons. In the former comparison, which draws on the logic of John Stuart Mills method of dierence and mimics the experimental method, the researcher compares two cases that are similar in all but one independent variable and that dier in the outcome variable. Such a comparison may be consistent with the inference that the dierence in the single independent variable that varies between the cases accounts for the dierence in the dependent variable (although for a variety of reasons discussed below, this inference may be spurious). In a comparison of least similar cases, which draws on Mills method of agreement, the researcher compares two cases that dier in all but one independent variable but that have the same value on the dependent variable. If, 1514

for example, we nd that teenagers are dicult in both tribal societies and industrialized societies, we might be tempted to infer that it is the nature of teenagers rather than the nature of society that accounts for the diculty of teenagers. Arend Lijphart (1971) and Harry Eckstein (1975) contributed further to the formalization of case study methods by clarifying the dierences among various types of case study research designs and theorybuilding goals. These authors identied similar types, although their terminology diers and Lijphart adds an important type, the deviant case, for which Eckstein does not make explicit provision. Their types of case studies correspond as shown in Table 1. The atheoretical or congurative-ideographic case study takes the form of a detailed narrative or story presented in the form of a chronicle that purports to illuminate how an event came about. Such a narrative is highly specic and makes no explicit use of theory or theory-related variables. Most case studies, however, do have an explanatory purpose. These studies generally fall into the category of disciplined-congurative or interpretive case studies, in which general propositions are used, often implicitly, to explain specic historical cases. Another variant of such case studies is the use of cases as examples that illustrate a theory. Heuristic case studies seek to generate new hypotheses inductively from the study of particular cases. Notably, statistical methods lack this capacity for inductively generating hypotheses, and they typically rely instead on hypotheses derived deductively or borrowed from case study research. An especially important type of case study for developing new hypotheses is the deviant case study. This is the study of a case whose outcome is not predicted or explained adequately by existing theories. Unless the outcome of a deviant case turns out to be a consequence of measurement error, the case is likely to be useful for identifying variables that have been left out of existing theories. Finally, researchers can use case studies to test whether the outcomes and processes that theories predict in particular cases are in fact evident. Ecksteins and Lijpharts contributions demonstrated that there was not just a single type of case study, but many kinds of case study research designs and many dierent theory-building purposes that they

Case Study: Methods and Analysis could serve. Their treatments diered, however, in that Lijphart relied greatly on statistical concepts and language. He was thus skeptical of the value of single case studies for building social science theories, and, consistent with the widespread preference at the time for large N over small n methods, he urged researchers to consider several means of either decreasing the number of variables in their models or increasing the number of cases to be studied in order to make use of statistical rather than case study methods. This advice, however, raised the risk conceptual stretching (Sartori 1970), or of lumping together dissimilar cases under the same denitions. Possibly for this reason, Lijphart later placed greater emphasis instead on the controlled comparison of most similar to cases as a basis for causal inference (Lijphart 1975, Collier 1993). Eckstein, in contrast, focused on the use of case studies for theory testing and argued that even single case studies could provide tests that might strongly support or impugn theories. In so doing, Eckstein developed the idea of a crucial case, or a case that must closely t a theory if one is to have condence in the theorys validity, or, conversely, must not t equally well any rule contrary to that proposed (Eckstein 1975, his emphasis). Eckstein argued that true crucial cases are rare, so he pointed to the alternative of most likely and least likely cases. A most likely case is one that is almost certain to t a theory if the theory is true for any cases at all. The failure of a theory to explain a most likely case greatly undermines our condence in the theory. A least likely case, conversely, is a tough test for a theory because it is a case in which the theory makes only a weak prediction. A theorys ability to explain a least likely case is strong evidence in favor of the theory. In this way, Eckstein argued, even single case studies could greatly increase or decrease our condence in a theory or require that we alter its scope conditions. Alexander George (1979 a, 1979 b) further developed case study methods by rening within-case analysis and cross-case comparisons in ways that help each method compensate for the limits of the other. George argued, as Mill himself had, that the method of dierence and the corresponding practice of comparison of most similar cases could lead to spurious inferences. One reason for this is that no two nonexperimental cases achieve the ideal of being similar in all respects but one independent variable and the outcome. Thus, there is always the danger that left-out variables or residual dierences in the values of the independent variables account for the dierence in the outcomes of similar cases of (see Human En ironment Relationship: Comparati e Case Studies). In addition, as Mill recognized, phenomena might be characterized by what general systems theorists have termed equinality, or the condition in which the same outcome can arise through dierent causal pathways or combinations of variables. Thus, there might be no single necessary or sucient variable for a phenomenon: it might be that either ABC or DEF causes Y, and that none of the variables AF is itself sucient to cause Y (see HumanEn ironment Relationship: Comparati e Case Studies). In such circumstances, pair-wise comparisons of cases might wrongly reject variables that contribute to the outcome of interest in conjunction with some contexts but not with others, and might also accept as causal variables that are in fact spurious. To compensate for these limits of controlled comparison, George developed the within case methods of congruence testing and process tracing as means of checking on whether inferences arrived at through case comparisons were spurious (see Pattern Matching: Methodology). In congruence testing, the researcher checks whether the prediction a theory makes in a case, in view of the values of the cases independent variables, is congruent with the actual outcome in the case. In process tracing, the researcher examines whether the causal process a theory hypothesizes in a case is in fact evident in the sequence and values of the intervening variables in that case. Thus, process tracing might be used to test whether the residual dierences between two similar cases were causal or spurious in producing a dierence in these cases outcomes. Process tracing can perform a heuristic function as well, generating new variables or hypotheses on the basis of sequences of events observed inductively in cases. George (1979 a, 1979 b) also systematized case study procedures by developing what he called the method of structured focused comparison. In this method, the researcher systematically: (a) species the research problem and the class of events to be studied; (b) denes the independent, dependent, and intervening variables of the relevant theories; (c) selects the cases to be studied and compared; (d) decides how best to characterize variance in the independent and dependent variables; and (e) formulates a detailed set of standard questions to be applied to each case. In addition, consistent with his emphasis on equinality, George argued that case studies could be especially useful in developing what he called typological theories, or contingent generalizations on the ariety of dierent causal patterns that can occur for the phenomena in question [and] the conditions under which each distincti e type of causal patterns occurs (George 1979a, his emphasis). He thus advocated a kind of building block approach to the development of theories in which each case, while rendered in terms of theoretical variables, might prove to be a distinctive causal pathway to the outcome of interest. In the 1980s and 1990s, thousands of books and articles made use of these improvements in case study methods in a wide variety of social science research programs. Meanwhile, scholars continued to elaborate case study methods and articulate the ways in which they diered from statistical methods. David Collier, 1515

Case Study: Methods and Analysis reviewing the development of case study and comparative methods, argued that these methods have advantages in dening and measuring qualitative variables in conceptually valid ways and forestalling the problem of conceptual stretching (Collier 1993). Charles Ragin argued that qualitative methods were also better than statistical methods at accounting for equinality and complex interaction eects. Although statistical methods can model several kinds of interaction eects, Ragin noted, they can do so only at the cost of requiring a larger sample size, and models of nonlinear interactions rapidly become complex and dicult to interpret. Ragin also introduced the method of Qualitative Comparative Analysis, which uses Boolean algebra to reduce a series of comparisons of cases to the minimum number of logical statements or hypotheses that entail the results of all the cases compared (Ragin 1987). This method, he argues, makes comparisons among cases in ways that treat them inherently as congurations of variables, and that thus allow for the possibility of equinality and complex interactions (see Congurational Analysis). Both Collier and Ragin also noted the limitations of case study methods, including the potential for indeterminacy when attempting to sort out rival explanations in a small number of cases, the diculty of attaining a detailed understanding of more than a few cases, and the inability to make broad generalizations on the basis of small numbers of cases. more easily addressed by case studies, and causal eects, which are best assessed through statistical means, are essential to the development of causal theories and causal explanations (George and Bennett 2001). Another relevant development in the philosophy of science has been the resurgence of interest in Bayesian logic, or the logic of using new data to update prior condence levels assigned to hypotheses. Bayesian logic diers from that of most statistics, which eschew reliance on prior probabilities. Ecksteins crucial, most likely, and least likely case study designs implicitly use a Bayesian logic, assigning prior probabilities to the likelihood of particular outcomes (McKeown 1999). One new development here is the renement of Ecksteins approach, taking into consideration the likelihood of an outcome not just in view of one theory, but in the presence of alternative hypotheses. If a case is most likely for a theory, and if the alternative hypotheses make the same prediction, then the theory will be strongly impugned if the prediction does not prove true. The failure of the theory cannot be blamed on the inuence of the variables highlighted by the alternative hypotheses. Conversely, if a theory makes only a weak prediction in a least likely case, the alternative hypotheses make a dierent prediction, but if the rst theorys prediction proves true, this is the strongest possible evidence in favor of the theory (Van Evera 1997). This helps address the central problem of a Bayesian approachthat of assigning and justifying prior probabilitieseven if it does not fully resolve it. The continuing development of the logic of hypothesis testing has also been relevant to case study methods (see Hypothesis Testing: Methodology and Limitations). On this topic, Imre Lakatos argued that a theory can be considered progressive only if it predicts and later corroborates new facts, or novel empirical content not anticipated by other theories (Lakatos 1976). This criterion helps provide a standard for judging whether process tracing, the designation of new subtypes, and the proposal of new theories from heuristic case studies are being done in a progressive or regressive way. It also provides a philosophical basis for arguing that a hypothesis can be derived from one set of observations within a case and then to some extent tested against the new facts or previously unexamined or unexpected data that it predicts within that same case, although independent corroboration in other cases is usually advisable as well (Collier 1993). 3.2 Typological Theories and Fuzzy Logic A second recent development in case study methods has been the elaboration of the concept of typological theory. Typological theories occupy a middle ground between covering laws, or highly general abstract propositions, and causal mechanisms. Typological

3. New De elopments in Case Study Methods

The thousands of applications of case study methods in the last two decades have provided fertile ground for further methodological renements. Three key recent developments include the strengthening of linkages between case study methods and the philosophy of science, the elaboration of the concept of typological theories, and the emergence of elements of consensus on the comparative advantages and limitations of case study methods. 3.1 Case Studies and the Philosophy of Science With regard to the philosophy of science, the scientic realist school of thought has emphasized that causal mechanisms, or independent stable factors that under certain conditions link causes to eects, are important to causal explanation (Little 1998). This has resonated with case study researchers use of process tracing to uncover evidence of causal mechanisms at work. It has also provided a philosophical counterpoint to attempts by researchers from the statistical tradition to place causal eects, or the expected dierence in outcomes brought about by the change in a single independent variable, at the center of causal explanation (King et al. 1994). Case study researchers have argued that both causal mechanisms, which are 1516

Case Study: Methods and Analysis theories identify recurring conjunctions of mechanisms and provide hypotheses on the pathways through which they produce eects. Thus, like QCA, typological theories treat cases as congurations. Unlike QCA, they do not attempt to reduce the number of theoretical statements about the variables, but retain a diverse and admittedly complex set of contingent generalizations, with potentially one generalization per type. Consequently, typological theories are well suited to modeling equinality. To construct typological theories, researchers rst specify the variables and use them to dene the typological space, or the set of all mathematically possible combinations of the variables (this is sometimes termed a truth table in the philosophy of science). At rst this may seem to produce an unmanageably large number of combinations: a model with ve dichotomous variables, for example, would have 32 possible types. However, once the researcher begins to categorize extant cases in a preliminary way into particular types, it often becomes possible to narrow the range of cases of interest for study. Many types may remain empty, with no extant cases. Some types may be overdetermined for the outcome of interest, and hence not worthy of study unless they have an unexpected outcome. From among the cases and types that remain, the researcher can use the preliminary categorization of cases within the typological space to help identify most likely, least likely, most similar, least similar, and crucial cases for study. Cases in the typological space with unexpected outcomes, or deviant cases, can help identify new causal pathways that can be added to the existing theory in a kind of building block approach (George and Bennett 2001). A related development concerns the concept of fuzzy logic (Ragin 2000). Fuzzy logic treats cases as congurations but rather than using dichotomous or trichotomous variables and categorizations of cases, it allows the use of scaling to give a score on the extent to which a case ts into a certain type. In other respects, the use of fuzzy logic proceeds in ways much like those of typological theories. available process tracing evidence (Njolstad 1990). When this occurs, it may still be possible to narrow the number of plausible explanations, and it is also important to indicate as clearly as possible the extent to which the remaining hypotheses appear to be complementary, competing, and incommensurate in explaining the case. Second, most case study researchers have readily acknowledged the limits of Mills methods. Ragins alternative of qualitative comparative analysis makes less restrictive assumptions, but its results are highly sensitive to changes in the measurement or coding of a single case (Goldthorpe 1997). There has thus been a movement toward typological theories and fuzzy logic, which make still less restrictive assumptions than QCA and are not so sensitive to the results of a single case. In addition, there is growing consensus that the use of within-case methods of analysis helps provide a check on the potential spuriousness of cross-case comparisons (Collier 1993, Mahoney 1999, George and Bennett 2001). Case study researchers consequently seldom if ever rely on case comparisons alone. Third, there is growing recognition that the case selection criteria necessary for statistical studies are in some respects inappropriate for case studies. Random selection in a case study research design, for example, can result in worse biases than intentional selection (King et al. 1994). There is also increasing understanding that, consistent with the reliance of some case study designs on a Bayesian logic, case studies are sometimes intentionally selected not to be representative of some wide population but to provide the strongest possible inferences on particular theories (McKeown 1999). There is still disagreement between those who warn against any selection on the dependent variable (King et al. 1994) and those who argue that selection on the dependent variable is appropriate for some research objectives (Collier and Mahoney 1996, Ragin 2000, George and Bennett 2001). Related to this is a continuing disagreement over whether single case studies can make only limited contributions to theory building (King et al. 1994), or whether single case studies have indeed reshaped entire research programs (Rogowski 1995). There is wider agreement, however, that selection bias is potentially more severe in case studies than statistical studies because biased selection of case studies can overstate as well as understate the relationship between the independent and dependent variables (Collier and Mahoney 1996). On the whole discussions of these issues have moved toward an emerging consensus on the comparative advantages and limitations of case study methods. These methods advantages include the conceptualization, operationalization, and measurement of qualitative variables (conceptual validity), the avoidance of conceptual stretching, the heuristic identication of new variables and hypotheses (often through study of deviant cases), the assessment of 1517

3.3 The Emerging Consensus on the Strengths and Limits of Case Study Methods A third development is that while several debates on case study methods continue, others have moved toward synthesis or even closure, and the overall picture is of an emerging consensus on the advantages limitations of case study methods. As noted above, researchers from a variety of methodological traditions have recognized that because case studies can include many observations, they do not suer from an inherent degrees of freedom problem. At the same time, it is also widely agreed that particular case studies may suer from indeterminacy, or an inability to exclude all but one explanation on the basis of

Case Study: Methods and Analysis whether statistical generalizations oer plausible or spurious explanations of individual cases, the incorporation of equinality and complex interactions eects, and the inferences made possible by combining within-case and cross-case analyses (Collier 1993, Munck 1998, George and Bennett 2001). It is possible that new statistical methods may be able to improve upon the statistical treatment of equinality and interaction eects, and at least narrow the gap in the treatment of this issue, but the other comparative advantages of case study methods appear to be inherent in their dierences from statistical methods. The limits of case study methods include their inappropriateness for judging the relative frequency or representativeness of cases, their weakness at performing partial correlations and establishing causal eects or causal weight, the necessarily narrow and contingent nature of their generalizations, and the danger that selection bias can be more catastrophic than in statistical studies (Collier 1993, King et al. 1994, Munck 1998, George and Bennett 2001). Fortunately, these are precisely the strengths of statistical studies. Psychotherapy: Case Study; Single-case Experimental Designs in Clinical Settings; Single-subject Designs: Methodology

Bibliography
Bates R H, Greif A, Rosenthal J, Weingast B, Levi M 1998 Analytic Narrati es. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ Collier D 1993 The comparative method. In: Finifter A W (ed.) Political Science: the State of the Discipline II. American Political Science Association, Washington, DC Collier D, Mahoney J 1996 Insights and pitfalls: selection bias in qualitative research. World Politics 1: 5691 Eckstein H 1975 Case studies and theory in political science. In: Greenstein F I, Polsby N W (eds.) Handbook of Political Science. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 7 George A L 1979 a Case studies and theory development. In: Lauren P G (ed.) Diplomacy: New Approaches in Theory, History, and Policy. Free Press, New York George A L 1979 b The Causal nexus between cognitive beliefs and decision-making behavior: the Operational Code.. In: Falkowski L S (ed.) Psychological Models in International Politics. Westview, Boulder, CO George A L, Bennett A O 2001 Case Studies and Theory De elopment. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Goldstone J 1997 Methodological issues in comparative macrosociology. Comparati e Social Research 16: 10720 Goldthorpe J 1997 Current issues in comparative macrosociology. Comparati e Social Research 16: 126 King G, Keohane R, Verba S 1994 Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ Lakatos I 1976 Falsication and the growth of scientic research programs. In: Lakatos I, Musgrave A (eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Lijphart A 1971 Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Re iew 65: 68293 Lijphart A 1975 The comparable cases strategy in comparative research. Comparati e Political Studies 8: 15877 Little D 1998 Microfoundations, Method, and Causation. Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ Mahoney J 1999 Nominal, ordinal, and narrative appraisal in macro-causal analysis. American Journal of Sociology 104: 115496 McKeown T 1999 Case studies and the statistical world view. International Organization. 1: 16190 Munck G L 1998 Canons of research design in qualitative analysis. Studies in Comparati e International De elopment 33: 1845 Njolstad O 1990 Learning from history? Case studies and the limits to theory-building. In: Gleditsch N P, Njolstad O (eds.) Arms Races: Technological and Political Dynamics. Sage, Newbury Park, CA Przeworski A, Teune H 1970 The Logic of Comparati e Social Inquiry. Wiley-Interscience, New York Ragin C C 1987 The Comparati e Method: Mo ing Beyond Qualitati e and Quantitati e Strategies. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA Ragin C C 2000 Fuzzy-Set Social Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Ragin C C, Becker H S 1992 Introduction. In: Ragin C C, Becker H S (eds.) What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

4. Future Directions in Case Study Methods

Just as the formalization of case study methods in the 1970s inspired a generation of more sophisticated research, the recent further renements in these methods are likely to lead to still greater sophistication in their use in the social, biological, and even physical sciences. The increasingly evident complementarity of case study and statistical methods is likely to lead toward more collaborative work by scholars using various methods. The recent interest among rational choice theorists in using case studies to test their theories, for example, is an important step in this direction (Bates et al. 1998). Because case studies, statistical methods, and formal modeling are all increasingly sophisticated, however, it is becoming less likely that a single researcher can be adept at more than one set of methods while also attaining a cuttingedge theoretical and empirical knowledge of their eld. Collaboration might therefore take the form of several researchers working together using dierent methods, or of researchers more self-consciously building on the ndings generated by those using dierent methods. In either form, eective collaboration requires that even as they become expert in one methodological approach, scholars must also become conversant with alternative approaches, aware of their strengths and limits, and capable of an informed reading of their substantive results. See also: Biographical Methodology: Psychological Perspectives; Case Study: Logic; Case-oriented Research; Congurational Analysis; HumanEnvironment Relationship: Comparative Case Studies; 1518

Case-oriented Research
Rogowski R 1995 The role of theory and anomaly in socialscientic inference. American Political Science Re iew 89: 46770 Sartori G 1970 Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Re iew 64: 103353 Van Evera S 1997 Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Cornell University Press Ithaca, NY Verba S 1967 Some dilemmas in comparative research. World Politics 20: 11127

A. Bennett

Case-oriented Research
1. Introduction
Case-oriented research focuses on interconnections among parts and aspects within single cases. In this approach, the researcher attempts to make sense of each case as a singular, interpretable entity. In-depth knowledge of the cases included in a study is considered a prerequisite for the examination of patterns that might be observed across cases. Case-oriented researchers often study one case at a time, but they may also study multiple instances of a given phenomenon (e.g., comparable instances of ethnic conict). The distinctiveness of case-oriented research is apparent when this approach is contrasted with the variable-oriented approach, where researchers focus more exclusively on cross-case patterns, without rst gaining an understanding of each case.

2. Goals of Case-oriented Research

Today social scientists tend to identify case-oriented research with specic techniques of data collection linked to the observation and analysis of singular cases (e.g., direct observation of individuals at the micro level and archival research on nation-states at the macro level). While generally useful, the identity of case-oriented research with specic techniques of data collection is unfortunate, for it obscures basic dierences between case-oriented research and conventional variable-oriented research. More fundamental than dierences in methods of data collection is the contrast between goals (Ragin 1987). Case-oriented strategies are distinctive in that they are centrally concerned with making sense of a relatively small number of cases, selected because they are substantively or theoretically signicant in some way (Eckstein 1975). Conventional variable-oriented strategies, by contrast, are centrally concerned with the problem of assessing the relationship between aspects of cases across a large number of generic observations, usually with the goal of inferring general patterns that hold for a population.

For example, a researcher might use a case-oriented approach in order to study a small number of rms in an in-depth manner. Suppose these rms were all thought to be unusually successful in retaining their best employees while at the same time investing in them and thus enhancing their potential value to competing rms. To nd out how they do it, a researcher would have to conduct an in-depth study of the rms in question. By contrast, a variable-oriented researcher might study the predictors of variation in rates of employee retention across a large sample of rms. Is it more a matter of rm or industry characteristics? Do these two sets of factors interact? Useful answers to these questions would be based on careful analysis of relationships between variables, using data drawn from a survey of a large number of rmsthe more (and the more varied), the better. As these two examples show, what matters most is the researchers starting point: does the researcher seek to understand specic cases or to document general patterns characterizing a population? This contrast follows a longstanding division in all of science, not just social science. Georg Henrik von Wright argues in Explanation and Understanding (1971) that there are two main traditions in the history of ideas regarding the conditions an explanation must satisfy in order to be considered scientically respectable. One tradition, which he calls nalistic, is anchored in the problem of making facts understandable. The other is called causal-mechanistic and is anchored in the problem of prediction. The contrast between case-oriented and variable-oriented research closely parallels this fundamental division. In the two examples just described, the rst researcher uses the case-oriented approach in order to make certain facts understandable, for example, the spectacular success of a handful of rms in retaining their most valuable employees; the second researcher uses the variableoriented approach in order to derive an equation predicting levels of retention, based on a large sample of rms, and to draw inferences from this equation to an entire population. Once the distinction between case-oriented and variable-oriented research is established and their contrasting goals acknowledged, it is clear that the importance of techniques of data collection as bearers of the case-oriented vs. variable-oriented distinction begins to fade. For example, it is clear that a researcher using case-oriented methods to study a handful of rms might benet from conducting surveys of their employees and performing a conventional variable-oriented analysis of these data. The results of the survey would contribute to this researchers depth of knowledge about the rms in question, just as interviewing their top executives or studying their archives would contribute useful information. Likewise, it is clear that the researcher using variableoriented methods to predict rates of retention could benet from interviews of top executives or personnel 1519