Case Study Method
Saul McLeod published 2008
Case studies are in-depth investigations of a single person, group, event or community. Typically, data are gathered from a variety of sources and by using several different methods (e.g. observations & interviews). The research may also continue for an extended period of time, so processes and developments can be studied as they happen.
The case study research method originated in clinical medicine (the case history, i.e. the patient’s personal history).
The case study method often involves simply observing what happens to, or reconstructing ‘the case history’ of a single participant or group of individuals (such as a school class or a specific social group), i.e. the idiographic approach. Case studies allow a researcher to investigate a topic in far more detail than might be possible if they were trying to deal with a large number of research participants (nomothetic approach) with the aim of ‘averaging’.
The case study is not itself a research method, but researchers select methods of data collection and analysis that will generate material suitable for case studies. Amongst the sources of data the psychologist is likely to turn to when carrying out a case study are observations of a person’s daily routine, unstructured interviews with the participant herself (and with people who know her), diaries, personal notes (e.g. letters, photographs, notes) or official document (e.g. case notes, clinical notes, appraisal reports). Most of this information is likely to be qualitative (i.e. verbal description rather than measurement) but the psychologist might collect numerical data as well.
The data collected can be analyzed using different theories (e.g. grounded theory, interpretative phenomenological analysis, text interpretation, e.g. thematic coding) etc. All the approaches mentioned here use preconceived categories in the analysis and they are ideographic in their approach, i.e. they focus on the individual case without reference to a comparison group.
Case studies are widely used in psychology and amongst the best known were the ones carried out by Sigmund Freud. He conducted very detailed investigations into the private lives of his patients in an attempt to both understand and help them overcome their illnesses.
Freud's most famous case studies include Little Hans (1909a) and The Rat Man (1909b). Even today case histories are one of the main methods of investigation in abnormal psychology and psychiatry. For students of these disciplines they can give a vivid insight into what those who suffer from mental illness often have to endure.
Case studies are often conducted in clinical medicine and involve collecting and reporting descriptive information about a particular person or specific environment, such as a school. In psychology, case studies are often confined to the study of a particular individual. The information is mainly biographical and relates to events in the individual's past (i.e. retrospective), as well as to significant events which are currently occurring in his or her everyday life.
In order to produce a fairly detailed and comprehensive profile of the person, the psychologist may use various types of accessible data, such as medical records, employer's reports, school reports or psychological test results. The interview is also an extremely effective procedure for obtaining information about an individual, and it may be used to collect comments from the person's friends, parents, employer, work mates and others who have a good knowledge of the person, as well as to obtain facts from the person him or herself.
This makes it clear that the case study is a method that should only be used by a psychologist, therapist or psychiatrist, i.e. someone with a professional qualification. There is an ethical issue of competence. Only someone qualified to diagnose and treat a person can conduct a formal case study relating to atypical (i.e. abnormal) behavior or atypical development.
The procedure used in a case study means that the researcher provides a description of the behavior. This comes from interviews and other sources, such as observation. The client also reports detail of events from his or her point of view. The researcher then writes up the information from both sources above as the case study, and interprets the information.
Interpreting the information means the researcher decides what to include or leave out. A good case study should always make clear which information is factual description and which is an inference or the opinion of the researcher.
Strengths of Case Studies
- Provides detailed (rich qualitative) information.
- Provides insight for further research.
- Permitting investigation of otherwise impractical (or unethical) situations.
Because of their in-depth, multi-sided approach case studies often shed light on aspects of human thinking and behavior that would be unethical or impractical to study in other ways. Research which only looks into the measurable aspects of human behavior is not likely to give us insights into the subjective dimension to experience which is so important to psychoanalytic and humanistic psychologists.
Case studies are often used in exploratory research. They can help us generate new ideas (that might be tested by other methods). They are an important way of illustrating theories and can help show how different aspects of a person's life are related to each other. The method is therefore important for psychologists who adopt a holistic point of view (i.e. humanistic psychologists).
Limitations of Case Studies
- Can’t generalize the results to the wider population.
- Researchers' own subjective feeling may influence the case study (researcher bias).
- Difficult to replicate.
- Time consuming.
Because a case study deals with only one person/event/group we can never be sure whether the conclusions drawn from this particular case apply elsewhere. The results of the study are not generalizable because we can never know whether the case we have investigated is representative of the wider body of "similar" instances
Because they are based on the analysis of qualitative (i.e. descriptive) data a lot depends on the interpretation the psychologist places on the information she has acquired. This means that there is a lot of scope for observer bias and it could be that the subjective opinions of the psychologist intrude in the assessment of what the data means.
For example, Freud has been criticized for producing case studies in which the information was sometimes distorted to fit the particular theories about behavior (e.g. Little Hans). This is also true of Money’s interpretation of the Bruce/Brenda case study (Diamond, 1997) when he ignored evidence that went against his theory.
Diamond, M., & Sigmundson, K. (1997). Sex Reassignment at Birth: Long-term Review and Clinical Implications. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 151(3), 298-304
Freud, S. (1909a). Analysis of a phobia of a five year old boy. In The Pelican Freud Library (1977), Vol 8, Case Histories 1, pages 169-306
Freud, S. (1909b). Bemerkungen über einen Fall von Zwangsneurose (Der "Rattenmann"). Jb. psychoanal. psychopathol. Forsch., I, p. 357-421; GW, VII, p. 379-463; Notes upon a case of obsessional neurosis, SE, 10: 151-318.
How to reference this article:
McLeod, S. A. (2008). Case study method. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/case-study.html
1. Wik M, Pingali P, Broca S. Background Paper for the World Development Report 2008: Global Agricultural Performance: Past Trends and Future Prospects. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2008.
2. Hazell P. In: Proven Successes in Agricultural Development. Spielman D, Pandya-Lorch R, editors. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute; 2010. pp. 67–97.
3. Conway G. One Billion Hungry. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ Press; in press.
4. Herdt R. In: Handbook of Agricultural Economics. Pingali P, Evenson R, editors. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2010. pp. 3253–3304.
5. World Bank . World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2007.
6. Johnston B, Mellor J. The role of agriculture in economic development. Am Econ Rev. 1961;51:566–593.
7. Lipton M. The Family Farm in a Globalizing World: The Role of Crop Science in Alleviating Poverty. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute; 2005.
8. Annan K. A challenge to the world’s scientists. Science. 2003;299:1485.[PubMed]
9. Evenson RE, Gollin D. Assessing the impact of the green revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science. 2003;300:758–762.[PubMed]
10. Renkow M, Byerlee D. The impacts of CGIAR research: A review of recent evidence. Food Policy. 2010;35:391–402.
11. Herdt R, Capule C. Adoption, Spread, and Production Impact of Modern Rice Varieties in Asia. Los Banos, Phillipines: International Rice Research Institute; 1983.
12. Byerlee D, Moya P. Impacts of International Wheat Breeding in the Developing World. D.F., Mexico: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT); 1993.
13. Morris ML. Impacts of International Maize Breeding Research in Developing Countries. D.F., Mexico: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT); 2002.
14. Walker T, Ryan J. Village and Household Economies in India’s Semi-Arid Tropics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ Press; 1991.
15. Walker T, Crissman C. Case Studies of the Economic Impact of CIP-Related Technologies. Lima, Peru: International Potato Center (CIP); 1996.
16. Evenson R. In: Crop Variety Improvement and Its Effect on Productivity: The Impact of International Agricultural Research. Evenson R, Gollin D, editors. Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing; 2003. pp. 447–472.
17. Binswanger H, McCalla A. In: Handbook of Agricultural Economics. Pingali P, Evenson R, editors. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2010. pp. 3571–3712.
18. FAO . The State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2004.
19. Cassman KG, Pingali PL. Intensification of irrigated rice systems: Learning from the past to meet future challenges. GeoJournal. 1995;35:299–305.
20. Swaminathan MS, editor. Wheat Revolution: A Dialogue. Madras, India: Macmillan; 1993.
21. Fuglie K. In: The Shifting Patterns of Agricultural Production and Productivity Worldwide. Alston JM, Babcock BA, Pardey PG, editors. Ames IA: Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center, Iowa State Univ; 2010. pp. 63–98.
22. Pingali P, Shah M. In: Sustaining Rice-Wheat Production Systems: Socio-eEonomic and Policy Issues. Pingali P, editor. New Delhi: Rice-Wheat Consortium; 1998. pp. 1–12.
23. Hayami Y, Herdt RW. Market effects of technological change on income distribution in semisubsistence agriculture. Am J Agric Econ. 1977;59:245–256.
24. Scobie G, Posada R. The impact of technical change on income distribution: The case of rice in Colombia. Am J Agric Econ. 1978;60:85–92.
25. Webb PJR. In: Fiat Panis: For a World Without Hunger. Eiselen H, editor. Stuttgart: Hampp Media/Balance Publications; 2009. pp. 410–434.
26. Stevenson J, Byerlee D, Villoria N, Kelley T, Maredia M. In: Measuring the Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Research: Theory and Applications to CGIAR Research. CGIAR Independent Science and Partnership Council, editor. Rome: Independent Science and Partnership Council Secretariat; 2011. pp. 49–87.
27. Evenson R, Gollin D. In: Crop Variety Improvement and Its Effect on Productivity: The Impact of International Agricultural Research. Evenson R, Gollin D, editors. Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing; 2003. pp. 7–38.
28. Evenson R, Rosegrant M. In: Crop Variety Improvement and Its Effect on Productivity: The Impact of International Agricultural Research. Evenson R, Gollin D, editors. Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing; 2003. pp. 473–497.
29. Pingali P. In: Handbook of Agricultural Economics. Evenson RE, Pingali PL, editors. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2007. pp. 2779–2805.
30. Morris M, Dubin HJ, Pokhrel T. Returns to wheat breeding research in Nepal. Agric Econ. 1994;10:269–282.
31. Maredia M, Byerlee D, editors. The Global Wheat Improvement System: Prospects for Enhancing Efficiency in the Presence of Spillovers. D.F., Mexico: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT); 1999.
32. Traxler G, Pingali P. In: Farmers, Gene Banks, and Crop Breeding: Economic Analyses of Diversity in Wheat, Maize, and Rice. Smale M, editor. Boston: Kluwer; 1998. pp. 205–216.
33. Byerlee D, Traxler G. In: Agricultural Science Policy: Changing Global Agendas. Alston J, Pardey P, Taylor M, editors. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ Press; 2001. pp. 161–186.
34. Hazell P. In: Handbook of Agricultural Economics. Pingali P, Evenson R, editors. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2010. pp. 3469–3530.
35. Alston JM, Chan-Kang C, Marra MC, Pardey PG, Wyatt TJ. A Meta-Analysis of Rates of Return to Agricultural Ex Pede Herculem? Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute; 2000.
36. Raitzer DA, Kelley TG. Benefit–cost meta-analysis of investment in the International Agricultural Research Centers of the CGIAR. Agric Syst. 2008;96:108–123.
37. Dubin H, Brennan J. In: Proven Successes in Agricultural Development. Spielman DJ, Pandya-Lorch R, editors. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute; 2010. pp. 31–66.
38. Thirtle C, Lin L, Piesse J. The impact of research-led agricultural productivity growth on poverty reduction in Africa, Asia and Latin America. World Dev. 2003;31:1959–1975.
39. Ravallion M, Datt G. How important to India’s poor is the sectoral composition of economic growth? World Bank Econ Rev. 1996;10:1–25.
40. Christiaensen L, Demery L, Kuhl J. The (evolving) role of agriculture in poverty reduction—An empirical perspective. J Dev Econ. 2011;96:239–254.
41. Fan S, Hazell P. Returns to public investments in the less-favored areas of India and China. Am J Agric Econ. 2001;83:1217–1222.
42. Hazell P. In: Agricultural Research and Poverty Reduction: Some Issues and Evidence. Mathur S, Pachico D, editors. Cali, Colombia: Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT); 2003. pp. 43–58.
43. Pingali P. In: Handbook of Agricultural Economics. Pingali P, Evenson R, editors. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2010. pp. 3867–3894.
44. Doss C. Twenty-Five Years of Research on Women Farmers in Africa: Lessons and Implications for Agricultural Research Institutions. D.F., Mexico: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center; 1999.
45. Paris TR. In: Impact of Rice Research. Pingali PL, Hossain M, editors. Los Banos, Phillipines: International Rice Research Institute; 1998. pp. 241–262.
46. McIntyre BD, Herren HR, Wakhungu J, Watson RT, editors. Agriculture at a Crossroads: The Global Report. Washington, DC: International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development; 2009.
47. FAO . The State of Food and Agriculture 2011: Women in Agriculture: Closing the Gender Gap for Development. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2011.
48. Alston JM, Norton GW, Pardey PG. Science Under Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ Press; 1995.
49. Fan S, Brzeska J. In: Handbook of Agricultural Economics. Pingali P, Evenson R, editors. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2010. pp. 3401–3434.
50. Pinstrup-Andersen P, Jaramillo M. In: The Green Revolution Reconsidered: The Impact of the High Yielding Rice Varieties in South India. Hazell P, Ramasamy C, editors. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ Press; 1991. pp. 85–104.
51. Torlesse H, Kiess L, Bloem MW. Association of household rice expenditure with child nutritional status indicates a role for macroeconomic food policy in combating malnutrition. J Nutr. 2003;133:1320–1325.[PubMed]
52. Cagauan A. In: Impact of Pesticides on Farmer Health and the Rice Environment. Pingali P, Roger P, editors. Boston: Kluwer; 1995. pp. 203–248.
53. Bouis H. Improving human nutrition through agriculture: The role of international agricultural research. Food Nutr Bull. 2000;21:550–567.
54. Kataki PK. Shifts in cropping system and its effect on human nutrition: Case study from India. Journal of Crop Production. 2002;6:119–144.
55. Welch RM, Graham RD. A new paradigm for world agriculture: productive, sustainable, nutritious, healthful food systems. Food Nutr Bull. 2000;21:361–366.
56. Shetty PS. Nutrition transition in India. Public Health Nutr. 2002;5:175–182.[PubMed]
57. Ecker O, Breisinger C, Pauw K. Growth Is Good, but Not Good Enough to Improve Nutrition. New Delhi: International Food Policy Research Institute; 2011.
58. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment . Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends. Washington, DC: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; 2005.
59. Burney JA, Davis SJ, Lobell DB. Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107:12052–12057.[PMC free article][PubMed]
60. Pingali PL, Rosegrant MW. Confronting the Environmental Consequences of the Green Revolution in Asia. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute; 1994.
61. Pingali P, Kelley T. In: Handbook of Agricultural Economics. Pingali PL, Evenson RE, editors. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2007. pp. 2381–2418.
62. Byerlee D. Modern varieties, productivity, and sustainability: Recent experience and emerging challenges. World Dev. 1996;24:697–718.
63. Byerlee D, Morris M. Research for marginal environments: Are we underinvested? Food Policy. 1993;18:381–393.
64. Lantican MA, Pingali P, Rajaram S. Is research on marginal lands catching up? The case of unfavourable wheat growing environments. Agric Econ. 2003;29:353–361.
65. David C. In: Modern Rice Technology and Income Distribution in Asia. Otsuka K, editor. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner; 1994.
66. Renkow M. Differential technology adoption and income distribution in Pakistan: Implications for research resource allocation. Am J Agric Econ. 1993;75:33–43.
67. Ruben R, Pender J, Kuyvenhoven A, editors. Sustainable Poverty Reduction in Less-Favored Areas. Cambridge, MA: CAB International; 2007.
68. Dercon S. Rural poverty: Old challenges in new contexts. World Bank Res Obs. 2009;24:1–28.
69. Binswanger H, Pingali P. Technological priorities for farming in sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank Res Obs. 1988;3:81–98.
70. Otsuka K, Kijima Y. Technology policies for a green revolution and agricultural transformation in Africa. J Afr Econ. 2010;19:ii60–ii76.
71. Jayne TS, Mather D, Mghenyi E. Principal challenges confronting smallholder agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. World Dev. 2010;38:1384–1398.
72. Timmer C. Structural Transformation as the Pathway Out of Poverty: The Changing Role of Agriculture in Economic Development. Washington, DC: The AEI Press; 2007.
73. Byerlee D, Janvry AD, Sadoulet E. Agriculture for development: Toward a new paradigm. Annual Review of Resource Economics. 2009;1:15–31.
74. Parry M, Rosenzweig C, Livermore M. Climate change, global food supply and risk of hunger. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2005;360:2125–2138.[PMC free article][PubMed]
75. Parry M, Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Livermore M, Fischer G. Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socioeconomic scenarios. Glob Environ Change. 2004;14:53–67.
76. Stern N. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge Univ Press; 2007.
77. Fischer G, Shah M, Tubiello FN, van Velhuizen H. Socio-economic and climate change impacts on agriculture: An integrated assessment, 1990–2080. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2005;360:2067–2083.[PMC free article][PubMed]
78. Reardon T, Minten B. The Quiet Revolution in India’s Food Supply Chains. New Delhi: International Food Policy Research Institute; 2011.
79. Dorjee K, Broca S, Pingali P. Diversification in South Asian Agriculture: Trends and Constraints. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2003.
80. Fuglie KO, et al. Research Investments and Market Structure in the Food Processing, Agricultural Input, and Biofuel Industries Worldwide. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture; 2011.
81. Pray C. Public-private sector linkages in research and development: Biotechnology and the seed industry in Brazil, China and India. Am J Agric Econ. 2001;83:742–747.
82. Gulati A, Dixon J, editors. Maize in Asia: Changing Markets and Incentives. New Delhi: Academic Foundation; 2008.
83. FAO . The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2011. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2011.
84. FAO . How to Feed the World in 2050. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2009.
85. Byerlee D, Fischer K. Accessing modern science: Policy and institutional options for agricultural biotechnology in developing countries. World Dev. 2002;30:931–948.
86. Paarlberg R. Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford Univ Press; 2010.