a multiple case study concerns

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Sage Choice

Continuing to enhance the quality of case study methodology in health services research

Shannon l. sibbald.

1 Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

2 Department of Family Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

3 The Schulich Interfaculty Program in Public Health, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

Stefan Paciocco

Meghan fournie, rachelle van asseldonk, tiffany scurr.

Case study methodology has grown in popularity within Health Services Research (HSR). However, its use and merit as a methodology are frequently criticized due to its flexible approach and inconsistent application. Nevertheless, case study methodology is well suited to HSR because it can track and examine complex relationships, contexts, and systems as they evolve. Applied appropriately, it can help generate information on how multiple forms of knowledge come together to inform decision-making within healthcare contexts. In this article, we aim to demystify case study methodology by outlining its philosophical underpinnings and three foundational approaches. We provide literature-based guidance to decision-makers, policy-makers, and health leaders on how to engage in and critically appraise case study design. We advocate that researchers work in collaboration with health leaders to detail their research process with an aim of strengthening the validity and integrity of case study for its continued and advanced use in HSR.

Introduction

The popularity of case study research methodology in Health Services Research (HSR) has grown over the past 40 years. 1 This may be attributed to a shift towards the use of implementation research and a newfound appreciation of contextual factors affecting the uptake of evidence-based interventions within diverse settings. 2 Incorporating context-specific information on the delivery and implementation of programs can increase the likelihood of success. 3 , 4 Case study methodology is particularly well suited for implementation research in health services because it can provide insight into the nuances of diverse contexts. 5 , 6 In 1999, Yin 7 published a paper on how to enhance the quality of case study in HSR, which was foundational for the emergence of case study in this field. Yin 7 maintains case study is an appropriate methodology in HSR because health systems are constantly evolving, and the multiple affiliations and diverse motivations are difficult to track and understand with traditional linear methodologies.

Despite its increased popularity, there is debate whether a case study is a methodology (ie, a principle or process that guides research) or a method (ie, a tool to answer research questions). Some criticize case study for its high level of flexibility, perceiving it as less rigorous, and maintain that it generates inadequate results. 8 Others have noted issues with quality and consistency in how case studies are conducted and reported. 9 Reporting is often varied and inconsistent, using a mix of approaches such as case reports, case findings, and/or case study. Authors sometimes use incongruent methods of data collection and analysis or use the case study as a default when other methodologies do not fit. 9 , 10 Despite these criticisms, case study methodology is becoming more common as a viable approach for HSR. 11 An abundance of articles and textbooks are available to guide researchers through case study research, including field-specific resources for business, 12 , 13 nursing, 14 and family medicine. 15 However, there remains confusion and a lack of clarity on the key tenets of case study methodology.

Several common philosophical underpinnings have contributed to the development of case study research 1 which has led to different approaches to planning, data collection, and analysis. This presents challenges in assessing quality and rigour for researchers conducting case studies and stakeholders reading results.

This article discusses the various approaches and philosophical underpinnings to case study methodology. Our goal is to explain it in a way that provides guidance for decision-makers, policy-makers, and health leaders on how to understand, critically appraise, and engage in case study research and design, as such guidance is largely absent in the literature. This article is by no means exhaustive or authoritative. Instead, we aim to provide guidance and encourage dialogue around case study methodology, facilitating critical thinking around the variety of approaches and ways quality and rigour can be bolstered for its use within HSR.

Purpose of case study methodology

Case study methodology is often used to develop an in-depth, holistic understanding of a specific phenomenon within a specified context. 11 It focuses on studying one or multiple cases over time and uses an in-depth analysis of multiple information sources. 16 , 17 It is ideal for situations including, but not limited to, exploring under-researched and real-life phenomena, 18 especially when the contexts are complex and the researcher has little control over the phenomena. 19 , 20 Case studies can be useful when researchers want to understand how interventions are implemented in different contexts, and how context shapes the phenomenon of interest.

In addition to demonstrating coherency with the type of questions case study is suited to answer, there are four key tenets to case study methodologies: (1) be transparent in the paradigmatic and theoretical perspectives influencing study design; (2) clearly define the case and phenomenon of interest; (3) clearly define and justify the type of case study design; and (4) use multiple data collection sources and analysis methods to present the findings in ways that are consistent with the methodology and the study’s paradigmatic base. 9 , 16 The goal is to appropriately match the methods to empirical questions and issues and not to universally advocate any single approach for all problems. 21

Approaches to case study methodology

Three authors propose distinct foundational approaches to case study methodology positioned within different paradigms: Yin, 19 , 22 Stake, 5 , 23 and Merriam 24 , 25 ( Table 1 ). Yin is strongly post-positivist whereas Stake and Merriam are grounded in a constructivist paradigm. Researchers should locate their research within a paradigm that explains the philosophies guiding their research 26 and adhere to the underlying paradigmatic assumptions and key tenets of the appropriate author’s methodology. This will enhance the consistency and coherency of the methods and findings. However, researchers often do not report their paradigmatic position, nor do they adhere to one approach. 9 Although deliberately blending methodologies may be defensible and methodologically appropriate, more often it is done in an ad hoc and haphazard way, without consideration for limitations.

Cross-analysis of three case study approaches, adapted from Yazan 2015

The post-positive paradigm postulates there is one reality that can be objectively described and understood by “bracketing” oneself from the research to remove prejudice or bias. 27 Yin focuses on general explanation and prediction, emphasizing the formulation of propositions, akin to hypothesis testing. This approach is best suited for structured and objective data collection 9 , 11 and is often used for mixed-method studies.

Constructivism assumes that the phenomenon of interest is constructed and influenced by local contexts, including the interaction between researchers, individuals, and their environment. 27 It acknowledges multiple interpretations of reality 24 constructed within the context by the researcher and participants which are unlikely to be replicated, should either change. 5 , 20 Stake and Merriam’s constructivist approaches emphasize a story-like rendering of a problem and an iterative process of constructing the case study. 7 This stance values researcher reflexivity and transparency, 28 acknowledging how researchers’ experiences and disciplinary lenses influence their assumptions and beliefs about the nature of the phenomenon and development of the findings.

Defining a case

A key tenet of case study methodology often underemphasized in literature is the importance of defining the case and phenomenon. Researches should clearly describe the case with sufficient detail to allow readers to fully understand the setting and context and determine applicability. Trying to answer a question that is too broad often leads to an unclear definition of the case and phenomenon. 20 Cases should therefore be bound by time and place to ensure rigor and feasibility. 6

Yin 22 defines a case as “a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context,” (p13) which may contain a single unit of analysis, including individuals, programs, corporations, or clinics 29 (holistic), or be broken into sub-units of analysis, such as projects, meetings, roles, or locations within the case (embedded). 30 Merriam 24 and Stake 5 similarly define a case as a single unit studied within a bounded system. Stake 5 , 23 suggests bounding cases by contexts and experiences where the phenomenon of interest can be a program, process, or experience. However, the line between the case and phenomenon can become muddy. For guidance, Stake 5 , 23 describes the case as the noun or entity and the phenomenon of interest as the verb, functioning, or activity of the case.

Designing the case study approach

Yin’s approach to a case study is rooted in a formal proposition or theory which guides the case and is used to test the outcome. 1 Stake 5 advocates for a flexible design and explicitly states that data collection and analysis may commence at any point. Merriam’s 24 approach blends both Yin and Stake’s, allowing the necessary flexibility in data collection and analysis to meet the needs.

Yin 30 proposed three types of case study approaches—descriptive, explanatory, and exploratory. Each can be designed around single or multiple cases, creating six basic case study methodologies. Descriptive studies provide a rich description of the phenomenon within its context, which can be helpful in developing theories. To test a theory or determine cause and effect relationships, researchers can use an explanatory design. An exploratory model is typically used in the pilot-test phase to develop propositions (eg, Sibbald et al. 31 used this approach to explore interprofessional network complexity). Despite having distinct characteristics, the boundaries between case study types are flexible with significant overlap. 30 Each has five key components: (1) research question; (2) proposition; (3) unit of analysis; (4) logical linking that connects the theory with proposition; and (5) criteria for analyzing findings.

Contrary to Yin, Stake 5 believes the research process cannot be planned in its entirety because research evolves as it is performed. Consequently, researchers can adjust the design of their methods even after data collection has begun. Stake 5 classifies case studies into three categories: intrinsic, instrumental, and collective/multiple. Intrinsic case studies focus on gaining a better understanding of the case. These are often undertaken when the researcher has an interest in a specific case. Instrumental case study is used when the case itself is not of the utmost importance, and the issue or phenomenon (ie, the research question) being explored becomes the focus instead (eg, Paciocco 32 used an instrumental case study to evaluate the implementation of a chronic disease management program). 5 Collective designs are rooted in an instrumental case study and include multiple cases to gain an in-depth understanding of the complexity and particularity of a phenomenon across diverse contexts. 5 , 23 In collective designs, studying similarities and differences between the cases allows the phenomenon to be understood more intimately (for examples of this in the field, see van Zelm et al. 33 and Burrows et al. 34 In addition, Sibbald et al. 35 present an example where a cross-case analysis method is used to compare instrumental cases).

Merriam’s approach is flexible (similar to Stake) as well as stepwise and linear (similar to Yin). She advocates for conducting a literature review before designing the study to better understand the theoretical underpinnings. 24 , 25 Unlike Stake or Yin, Merriam proposes a step-by-step guide for researchers to design a case study. These steps include performing a literature review, creating a theoretical framework, identifying the problem, creating and refining the research question(s), and selecting a study sample that fits the question(s). 24 , 25 , 36

Data collection and analysis

Using multiple data collection methods is a key characteristic of all case study methodology; it enhances the credibility of the findings by allowing different facets and views of the phenomenon to be explored. 23 Common methods include interviews, focus groups, observation, and document analysis. 5 , 37 By seeking patterns within and across data sources, a thick description of the case can be generated to support a greater understanding and interpretation of the whole phenomenon. 5 , 17 , 20 , 23 This technique is called triangulation and is used to explore cases with greater accuracy. 5 Although Stake 5 maintains case study is most often used in qualitative research, Yin 17 supports a mix of both quantitative and qualitative methods to triangulate data. This deliberate convergence of data sources (or mixed methods) allows researchers to find greater depth in their analysis and develop converging lines of inquiry. For example, case studies evaluating interventions commonly use qualitative interviews to describe the implementation process, barriers, and facilitators paired with a quantitative survey of comparative outcomes and effectiveness. 33 , 38 , 39

Yin 30 describes analysis as dependent on the chosen approach, whether it be (1) deductive and rely on theoretical propositions; (2) inductive and analyze data from the “ground up”; (3) organized to create a case description; or (4) used to examine plausible rival explanations. According to Yin’s 40 approach to descriptive case studies, carefully considering theory development is an important part of study design. “Theory” refers to field-relevant propositions, commonly agreed upon assumptions, or fully developed theories. 40 Stake 5 advocates for using the researcher’s intuition and impression to guide analysis through a categorical aggregation and direct interpretation. Merriam 24 uses six different methods to guide the “process of making meaning” (p178) : (1) ethnographic analysis; (2) narrative analysis; (3) phenomenological analysis; (4) constant comparative method; (5) content analysis; and (6) analytic induction.

Drawing upon a theoretical or conceptual framework to inform analysis improves the quality of case study and avoids the risk of description without meaning. 18 Using Stake’s 5 approach, researchers rely on protocols and previous knowledge to help make sense of new ideas; theory can guide the research and assist researchers in understanding how new information fits into existing knowledge.

Practical applications of case study research

Columbia University has recently demonstrated how case studies can help train future health leaders. 41 Case studies encompass components of systems thinking—considering connections and interactions between components of a system, alongside the implications and consequences of those relationships—to equip health leaders with tools to tackle global health issues. 41 Greenwood 42 evaluated Indigenous peoples’ relationship with the healthcare system in British Columbia and used a case study to challenge and educate health leaders across the country to enhance culturally sensitive health service environments.

An important but often omitted step in case study research is an assessment of quality and rigour. We recommend using a framework or set of criteria to assess the rigour of the qualitative research. Suitable resources include Caelli et al., 43 Houghten et al., 44 Ravenek and Rudman, 45 and Tracy. 46

New directions in case study

Although “pragmatic” case studies (ie, utilizing practical and applicable methods) have existed within psychotherapy for some time, 47 , 48 only recently has the applicability of pragmatism as an underlying paradigmatic perspective been considered in HSR. 49 This is marked by uptake of pragmatism in Randomized Control Trials, recognizing that “gold standard” testing conditions do not reflect the reality of clinical settings 50 , 51 nor do a handful of epistemologically guided methodologies suit every research inquiry.

Pragmatism positions the research question as the basis for methodological choices, rather than a theory or epistemology, allowing researchers to pursue the most practical approach to understanding a problem or discovering an actionable solution. 52 Mixed methods are commonly used to create a deeper understanding of the case through converging qualitative and quantitative data. 52 Pragmatic case study is suited to HSR because its flexibility throughout the research process accommodates complexity, ever-changing systems, and disruptions to research plans. 49 , 50 Much like case study, pragmatism has been criticized for its flexibility and use when other approaches are seemingly ill-fit. 53 , 54 Similarly, authors argue that this results from a lack of investigation and proper application rather than a reflection of validity, legitimizing the need for more exploration and conversation among researchers and practitioners. 55

Although occasionally misunderstood as a less rigourous research methodology, 8 case study research is highly flexible and allows for contextual nuances. 5 , 6 Its use is valuable when the researcher desires a thorough understanding of a phenomenon or case bound by context. 11 If needed, multiple similar cases can be studied simultaneously, or one case within another. 16 , 17 There are currently three main approaches to case study, 5 , 17 , 24 each with their own definitions of a case, ontological and epistemological paradigms, methodologies, and data collection and analysis procedures. 37

Individuals’ experiences within health systems are influenced heavily by contextual factors, participant experience, and intricate relationships between different organizations and actors. 55 Case study research is well suited for HSR because it can track and examine these complex relationships and systems as they evolve over time. 6 , 7 It is important that researchers and health leaders using this methodology understand its key tenets and how to conduct a proper case study. Although there are many examples of case study in action, they are often under-reported and, when reported, not rigorously conducted. 9 Thus, decision-makers and health leaders should use these examples with caution. The proper reporting of case studies is necessary to bolster their credibility in HSR literature and provide readers sufficient information to critically assess the methodology. We also call on health leaders who frequently use case studies 56 – 58 to report them in the primary research literature.

The purpose of this article is to advocate for the continued and advanced use of case study in HSR and to provide literature-based guidance for decision-makers, policy-makers, and health leaders on how to engage in, read, and interpret findings from case study research. As health systems progress and evolve, the application of case study research will continue to increase as researchers and health leaders aim to capture the inherent complexities, nuances, and contextual factors. 7

The Ultimate Guide to Qualitative Research - Part 1: The Basics

• Introduction and overview
• What is qualitative research?
• What is qualitative data?
• Examples of qualitative data
• Qualitative vs. quantitative research
• Mixed methods
• Qualitative research preparation
• Theoretical perspective
• Theoretical framework
• Literature reviews

Research question

• Conceptual framework
• Conceptual vs. theoretical framework

Data collection

• Qualitative research methods
• Focus groups
• Observational research

What is a case study?

Applications for case study research, what is a good case study, process of case study design, benefits and limitations of case studies.

• Ethnographical research
• Ethical considerations
• Confidentiality and privacy
• Power dynamics
• Reflexivity

Case studies

Case studies are essential to qualitative research , offering a lens through which researchers can investigate complex phenomena within their real-life contexts. This chapter explores the concept, purpose, applications, examples, and types of case studies and provides guidance on how to conduct case study research effectively.

Whereas quantitative methods look at phenomena at scale, case study research looks at a concept or phenomenon in considerable detail. While analyzing a single case can help understand one perspective regarding the object of research inquiry, analyzing multiple cases can help obtain a more holistic sense of the topic or issue. Let's provide a basic definition of a case study, then explore its characteristics and role in the qualitative research process.

Definition of a case study

A case study in qualitative research is a strategy of inquiry that involves an in-depth investigation of a phenomenon within its real-world context. It provides researchers with the opportunity to acquire an in-depth understanding of intricate details that might not be as apparent or accessible through other methods of research. The specific case or cases being studied can be a single person, group, or organization – demarcating what constitutes a relevant case worth studying depends on the researcher and their research question .

Among qualitative research methods , a case study relies on multiple sources of evidence, such as documents, artifacts, interviews , or observations , to present a complete and nuanced understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. The objective is to illuminate the readers' understanding of the phenomenon beyond its abstract statistical or theoretical explanations.

Characteristics of case studies

Case studies typically possess a number of distinct characteristics that set them apart from other research methods. These characteristics include a focus on holistic description and explanation, flexibility in the design and data collection methods, reliance on multiple sources of evidence, and emphasis on the context in which the phenomenon occurs.

Furthermore, case studies can often involve a longitudinal examination of the case, meaning they study the case over a period of time. These characteristics allow case studies to yield comprehensive, in-depth, and richly contextualized insights about the phenomenon of interest.

The role of case studies in research

Case studies hold a unique position in the broader landscape of research methods aimed at theory development. They are instrumental when the primary research interest is to gain an intensive, detailed understanding of a phenomenon in its real-life context.

In addition, case studies can serve different purposes within research - they can be used for exploratory, descriptive, or explanatory purposes, depending on the research question and objectives. This flexibility and depth make case studies a valuable tool in the toolkit of qualitative researchers.

Remember, a well-conducted case study can offer a rich, insightful contribution to both academic and practical knowledge through theory development or theory verification, thus enhancing our understanding of complex phenomena in their real-world contexts.

What is the purpose of a case study?

Case study research aims for a more comprehensive understanding of phenomena, requiring various research methods to gather information for qualitative analysis . Ultimately, a case study can allow the researcher to gain insight into a particular object of inquiry and develop a theoretical framework relevant to the research inquiry.

Why use case studies in qualitative research?

Using case studies as a research strategy depends mainly on the nature of the research question and the researcher's access to the data.

Conducting case study research provides a level of detail and contextual richness that other research methods might not offer. They are beneficial when there's a need to understand complex social phenomena within their natural contexts.

The explanatory, exploratory, and descriptive roles of case studies

Case studies can take on various roles depending on the research objectives. They can be exploratory when the research aims to discover new phenomena or define new research questions; they are descriptive when the objective is to depict a phenomenon within its context in a detailed manner; and they can be explanatory if the goal is to understand specific relationships within the studied context. Thus, the versatility of case studies allows researchers to approach their topic from different angles, offering multiple ways to uncover and interpret the data .

The impact of case studies on knowledge development

Case studies play a significant role in knowledge development across various disciplines. Analysis of cases provides an avenue for researchers to explore phenomena within their context based on the collected data.

This can result in the production of rich, practical insights that can be instrumental in both theory-building and practice. Case studies allow researchers to delve into the intricacies and complexities of real-life situations, uncovering insights that might otherwise remain hidden.

Types of case studies

In qualitative research , a case study is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Depending on the nature of the research question and the specific objectives of the study, researchers might choose to use different types of case studies. These types differ in their focus, methodology, and the level of detail they provide about the phenomenon under investigation.

Understanding these types is crucial for selecting the most appropriate approach for your research project and effectively achieving your research goals. Let's briefly look at the main types of case studies.

Exploratory case studies

Exploratory case studies are typically conducted to develop a theory or framework around an understudied phenomenon. They can also serve as a precursor to a larger-scale research project. Exploratory case studies are useful when a researcher wants to identify the key issues or questions which can spur more extensive study or be used to develop propositions for further research. These case studies are characterized by flexibility, allowing researchers to explore various aspects of a phenomenon as they emerge, which can also form the foundation for subsequent studies.

Descriptive case studies

Descriptive case studies aim to provide a complete and accurate representation of a phenomenon or event within its context. These case studies are often based on an established theoretical framework, which guides how data is collected and analyzed. The researcher is concerned with describing the phenomenon in detail, as it occurs naturally, without trying to influence or manipulate it.

Explanatory case studies

Explanatory case studies are focused on explanation - they seek to clarify how or why certain phenomena occur. Often used in complex, real-life situations, they can be particularly valuable in clarifying causal relationships among concepts and understanding the interplay between different factors within a specific context.

Intrinsic, instrumental, and collective case studies

These three categories of case studies focus on the nature and purpose of the study. An intrinsic case study is conducted when a researcher has an inherent interest in the case itself. Instrumental case studies are employed when the case is used to provide insight into a particular issue or phenomenon. A collective case study, on the other hand, involves studying multiple cases simultaneously to investigate some general phenomena.

Each type of case study serves a different purpose and has its own strengths and challenges. The selection of the type should be guided by the research question and objectives, as well as the context and constraints of the research.

The flexibility, depth, and contextual richness offered by case studies make this approach an excellent research method for various fields of study. They enable researchers to investigate real-world phenomena within their specific contexts, capturing nuances that other research methods might miss. Across numerous fields, case studies provide valuable insights into complex issues.

Critical information systems research

Case studies provide a detailed understanding of the role and impact of information systems in different contexts. They offer a platform to explore how information systems are designed, implemented, and used and how they interact with various social, economic, and political factors. Case studies in this field often focus on examining the intricate relationship between technology, organizational processes, and user behavior, helping to uncover insights that can inform better system design and implementation.

Health research

Health research is another field where case studies are highly valuable. They offer a way to explore patient experiences, healthcare delivery processes, and the impact of various interventions in a real-world context.

Case studies can provide a deep understanding of a patient's journey, giving insights into the intricacies of disease progression, treatment effects, and the psychosocial aspects of health and illness.

Asthma research studies

Specifically within medical research, studies on asthma often employ case studies to explore the individual and environmental factors that influence asthma development, management, and outcomes. A case study can provide rich, detailed data about individual patients' experiences, from the triggers and symptoms they experience to the effectiveness of various management strategies. This can be crucial for developing patient-centered asthma care approaches.

Other fields

Apart from the fields mentioned, case studies are also extensively used in business and management research, education research, and political sciences, among many others. They provide an opportunity to delve into the intricacies of real-world situations, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of various phenomena.

Case studies, with their depth and contextual focus, offer unique insights across these varied fields. They allow researchers to illuminate the complexities of real-life situations, contributing to both theory and practice.

Whatever field you're in, ATLAS.ti puts your data to work for you

Download a free trial of ATLAS.ti to turn your data into insights.

Understanding the key elements of case study design is crucial for conducting rigorous and impactful case study research. A well-structured design guides the researcher through the process, ensuring that the study is methodologically sound and its findings are reliable and valid. The main elements of case study design include the research question , propositions, units of analysis, and the logic linking the data to the propositions.

The research question is the foundation of any research study. A good research question guides the direction of the study and informs the selection of the case, the methods of collecting data, and the analysis techniques. A well-formulated research question in case study research is typically clear, focused, and complex enough to merit further detailed examination of the relevant case(s).

Propositions

Propositions, though not necessary in every case study, provide a direction by stating what we might expect to find in the data collected. They guide how data is collected and analyzed by helping researchers focus on specific aspects of the case. They are particularly important in explanatory case studies, which seek to understand the relationships among concepts within the studied phenomenon.

Units of analysis

The unit of analysis refers to the case, or the main entity or entities that are being analyzed in the study. In case study research, the unit of analysis can be an individual, a group, an organization, a decision, an event, or even a time period. It's crucial to clearly define the unit of analysis, as it shapes the qualitative data analysis process by allowing the researcher to analyze a particular case and synthesize analysis across multiple case studies to draw conclusions.

Argumentation

This refers to the inferential model that allows researchers to draw conclusions from the data. The researcher needs to ensure that there is a clear link between the data, the propositions (if any), and the conclusions drawn. This argumentation is what enables the researcher to make valid and credible inferences about the phenomenon under study.

Understanding and carefully considering these elements in the design phase of a case study can significantly enhance the quality of the research. It can help ensure that the study is methodologically sound and its findings contribute meaningful insights about the case.

Ready to jumpstart your research with ATLAS.ti?

Conceptualize your research project with our intuitive data analysis interface. Download a free trial today.

Conducting a case study involves several steps, from defining the research question and selecting the case to collecting and analyzing data . This section outlines these key stages, providing a practical guide on how to conduct case study research.

Defining the research question

The first step in case study research is defining a clear, focused research question. This question should guide the entire research process, from case selection to analysis. It's crucial to ensure that the research question is suitable for a case study approach. Typically, such questions are exploratory or descriptive in nature and focus on understanding a phenomenon within its real-life context.

Selecting and defining the case

The selection of the case should be based on the research question and the objectives of the study. It involves choosing a unique example or a set of examples that provide rich, in-depth data about the phenomenon under investigation. After selecting the case, it's crucial to define it clearly, setting the boundaries of the case, including the time period and the specific context.

Previous research can help guide the case study design. When considering a case study, an example of a case could be taken from previous case study research and used to define cases in a new research inquiry. Considering recently published examples can help understand how to select and define cases effectively.

Developing a detailed case study protocol

A case study protocol outlines the procedures and general rules to be followed during the case study. This includes the data collection methods to be used, the sources of data, and the procedures for analysis. Having a detailed case study protocol ensures consistency and reliability in the study.

The protocol should also consider how to work with the people involved in the research context to grant the research team access to collecting data. As mentioned in previous sections of this guide, establishing rapport is an essential component of qualitative research as it shapes the overall potential for collecting and analyzing data.

Collecting data

Gathering data in case study research often involves multiple sources of evidence, including documents, archival records, interviews, observations, and physical artifacts. This allows for a comprehensive understanding of the case. The process for gathering data should be systematic and carefully documented to ensure the reliability and validity of the study.

Analyzing and interpreting data

The next step is analyzing the data. This involves organizing the data , categorizing it into themes or patterns , and interpreting these patterns to answer the research question. The analysis might also involve comparing the findings with prior research or theoretical propositions.

Writing the case study report

The final step is writing the case study report . This should provide a detailed description of the case, the data, the analysis process, and the findings. The report should be clear, organized, and carefully written to ensure that the reader can understand the case and the conclusions drawn from it.

Each of these steps is crucial in ensuring that the case study research is rigorous, reliable, and provides valuable insights about the case.

The type, depth, and quality of data in your study can significantly influence the validity and utility of the study. In case study research, data is usually collected from multiple sources to provide a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the case. This section will outline the various methods of collecting data used in case study research and discuss considerations for ensuring the quality of the data.

Interviews are a common method of gathering data in case study research. They can provide rich, in-depth data about the perspectives, experiences, and interpretations of the individuals involved in the case. Interviews can be structured , semi-structured , or unstructured , depending on the research question and the degree of flexibility needed.

Observations

Observations involve the researcher observing the case in its natural setting, providing first-hand information about the case and its context. Observations can provide data that might not be revealed in interviews or documents, such as non-verbal cues or contextual information.

Documents and artifacts

Documents and archival records provide a valuable source of data in case study research. They can include reports, letters, memos, meeting minutes, email correspondence, and various public and private documents related to the case.

These records can provide historical context, corroborate evidence from other sources, and offer insights into the case that might not be apparent from interviews or observations.

Physical artifacts refer to any physical evidence related to the case, such as tools, products, or physical environments. These artifacts can provide tangible insights into the case, complementing the data gathered from other sources.

Ensuring the quality of data collection

Determining the quality of data in case study research requires careful planning and execution. It's crucial to ensure that the data is reliable, accurate, and relevant to the research question. This involves selecting appropriate methods of collecting data, properly training interviewers or observers, and systematically recording and storing the data. It also includes considering ethical issues related to collecting and handling data, such as obtaining informed consent and ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of the participants.

Data analysis

Analyzing case study research involves making sense of the rich, detailed data to answer the research question. This process can be challenging due to the volume and complexity of case study data. However, a systematic and rigorous approach to analysis can ensure that the findings are credible and meaningful. This section outlines the main steps and considerations in analyzing data in case study research.

Organizing the data

The first step in the analysis is organizing the data. This involves sorting the data into manageable sections, often according to the data source or the theme. This step can also involve transcribing interviews, digitizing physical artifacts, or organizing observational data.

Categorizing and coding the data

Once the data is organized, the next step is to categorize or code the data. This involves identifying common themes, patterns, or concepts in the data and assigning codes to relevant data segments. Coding can be done manually or with the help of software tools, and in either case, qualitative analysis software can greatly facilitate the entire coding process. Coding helps to reduce the data to a set of themes or categories that can be more easily analyzed.

Identifying patterns and themes

After coding the data, the researcher looks for patterns or themes in the coded data. This involves comparing and contrasting the codes and looking for relationships or patterns among them. The identified patterns and themes should help answer the research question.

Interpreting the data

Once patterns and themes have been identified, the next step is to interpret these findings. This involves explaining what the patterns or themes mean in the context of the research question and the case. This interpretation should be grounded in the data, but it can also involve drawing on theoretical concepts or prior research.

Verification of the data

The last step in the analysis is verification. This involves checking the accuracy and consistency of the analysis process and confirming that the findings are supported by the data. This can involve re-checking the original data, checking the consistency of codes, or seeking feedback from research participants or peers.

Like any research method , case study research has its strengths and limitations. Researchers must be aware of these, as they can influence the design, conduct, and interpretation of the study.

Understanding the strengths and limitations of case study research can also guide researchers in deciding whether this approach is suitable for their research question . This section outlines some of the key strengths and limitations of case study research.

Benefits include the following:

• Rich, detailed data: One of the main strengths of case study research is that it can generate rich, detailed data about the case. This can provide a deep understanding of the case and its context, which can be valuable in exploring complex phenomena.
• Flexibility: Case study research is flexible in terms of design , data collection , and analysis . A sufficient degree of flexibility allows the researcher to adapt the study according to the case and the emerging findings.
• Real-world context: Case study research involves studying the case in its real-world context, which can provide valuable insights into the interplay between the case and its context.
• Multiple sources of evidence: Case study research often involves collecting data from multiple sources , which can enhance the robustness and validity of the findings.

On the other hand, researchers should consider the following limitations:

• Generalizability: A common criticism of case study research is that its findings might not be generalizable to other cases due to the specificity and uniqueness of each case.
• Time and resource intensive: Case study research can be time and resource intensive due to the depth of the investigation and the amount of collected data.
• Complexity of analysis: The rich, detailed data generated in case study research can make analyzing the data challenging.
• Subjectivity: Given the nature of case study research, there may be a higher degree of subjectivity in interpreting the data , so researchers need to reflect on this and transparently convey to audiences how the research was conducted.

Being aware of these strengths and limitations can help researchers design and conduct case study research effectively and interpret and report the findings appropriately.

Ready to analyze your data with ATLAS.ti?

See how our intuitive software can draw key insights from your data with a free trial today.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Research Guides

Multiple Case Studies

Nadia Alqahtani and Pengtong Qu

Description

The case study approach is popular across disciplines in education, anthropology, sociology, psychology, medicine, law, and political science (Creswell, 2013). It is both a research method and a strategy (Creswell, 2013; Yin, 2017). In this type of research design, a case can be an individual, an event, or an entity, as determined by the research questions. There are two variants of the case study: the single-case study and the multiple-case study. The former design can be used to study and understand an unusual case, a critical case, a longitudinal case, or a revelatory case. On the other hand, a multiple-case study includes two or more cases or replications across the cases to investigate the same phenomena (Lewis-Beck, Bryman & Liao, 2003; Yin, 2017). …a multiple-case study includes two or more cases or replications across the cases to investigate the same phenomena

The difference between the single- and multiple-case study is the research design; however, they are within the same methodological framework (Yin, 2017). Multiple cases are selected so that “individual case studies either (a) predict similar results (a literal replication) or (b) predict contrasting results but for anticipatable reasons (a theoretical replication)” (p. 55). When the purpose of the study is to compare and replicate the findings, the multiple-case study produces more compelling evidence so that the study is considered more robust than the single-case study (Yin, 2017).

To write a multiple-case study, a summary of individual cases should be reported, and researchers need to draw cross-case conclusions and form a cross-case report (Yin, 2017). With evidence from multiple cases, researchers may have generalizable findings and develop theories (Lewis-Beck, Bryman & Liao, 2003).

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Lewis-Beck, M., Bryman, A. E., & Liao, T. F. (2003). The Sage encyclopedia of social science research methods . Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods . Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Key Research Books and Articles on Multiple Case Study Methodology

Yin discusses how to decide if a case study should be used in research. Novice researchers can learn about research design, data collection, and data analysis of different types of case studies, as well as writing a case study report.

Chapter 2 introduces four major types of research design in case studies: holistic single-case design, embedded single-case design, holistic multiple-case design, and embedded multiple-case design. Novice researchers will learn about the definitions and characteristics of different designs. This chapter also teaches researchers how to examine and discuss the reliability and validity of the designs.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches . Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

This book compares five different qualitative research designs: narrative research, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, and case study. It compares the characteristics, data collection, data analysis and representation, validity, and writing-up procedures among five inquiry approaches using texts with tables. For each approach, the author introduced the definition, features, types, and procedures and contextualized these components in a study, which was conducted through the same method. Each chapter ends with a list of relevant readings of each inquiry approach.

This book invites readers to compare these five qualitative methods and see the value of each approach. Readers can consider which approach would serve for their research contexts and questions, as well as how to design their research and conduct the data analysis based on their choice of research method.

Günes, E., & Bahçivan, E. (2016). A multiple case study of preservice science teachers’ TPACK: Embedded in a comprehensive belief system. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11 (15), 8040-8054.

In this article, the researchers showed the importance of using technological opportunities in improving the education process and how they enhanced the students’ learning in science education. The study examined the connection between “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge” (TPACK) and belief system in a science teaching context. The researchers used the multiple-case study to explore the effect of TPACK on the preservice science teachers’ (PST) beliefs on their TPACK level. The participants were three teachers with the low, medium, and high level of TPACK confidence. Content analysis was utilized to analyze the data, which were collected by individual semi-structured interviews with the participants about their lesson plans. The study first discussed each case, then compared features and relations across cases. The researchers found that there was a positive relationship between PST’s TPACK confidence and TPACK level; when PST had higher TPACK confidence, the participant had a higher competent TPACK level and vice versa.

Recent Dissertations Using Multiple Case Study Methodology

Milholland, E. S. (2015). A multiple case study of instructors utilizing Classroom Response Systems (CRS) to achieve pedagogical goals . Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order Number 3706380)

The researcher of this study critiques the use of Classroom Responses Systems by five instructors who employed this program five years ago in their classrooms. The researcher conducted the multiple-case study methodology and categorized themes. He interviewed each instructor with questions about their initial pedagogical goals, the changes in pedagogy during teaching, and the teaching techniques individuals used while practicing the CRS. The researcher used the multiple-case study with five instructors. He found that all instructors changed their goals during employing CRS; they decided to reduce the time of lecturing and to spend more time engaging students in interactive activities. This study also demonstrated that CRS was useful for the instructors to achieve multiple learning goals; all the instructors provided examples of the positive aspect of implementing CRS in their classrooms.

Li, C. L. (2010). The emergence of fairy tale literacy: A multiple case study on promoting critical literacy of children through a juxtaposed reading of classic fairy tales and their contemporary disruptive variants . Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order Number 3572104)

To explore how children’s development of critical literacy can be impacted by their reactions to fairy tales, the author conducted a multiple-case study with 4 cases, in which each child was a unit of analysis. Two Chinese immigrant children (a boy and a girl) and two American children (a boy and a girl) at the second or third grade were recruited in the study. The data were collected through interviews, discussions on fairy tales, and drawing pictures. The analysis was conducted within both individual cases and cross cases. Across four cases, the researcher found that the young children’s’ knowledge of traditional fairy tales was built upon mass-media based adaptations. The children believed that the representations on mass-media were the original stories, even though fairy tales are included in the elementary school curriculum. The author also found that introducing classic versions of fairy tales increased children’s knowledge in the genre’s origin, which would benefit their understanding of the genre. She argued that introducing fairy tales can be the first step to promote children’s development of critical literacy.

Asher, K. C. (2014). Mediating occupational socialization and occupational individuation in teacher education: A multiple case study of five elementary pre-service student teachers . Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order Number 3671989)

This study portrayed five pre-service teachers’ teaching experience in their student teaching phase and explored how pre-service teachers mediate their occupational socialization with occupational individuation. The study used the multiple-case study design and recruited five pre-service teachers from a Midwestern university as five cases. Qualitative data were collected through interviews, classroom observations, and field notes. The author implemented the case study analysis and found five strategies that the participants used to mediate occupational socialization with occupational individuation. These strategies were: 1) hindering from practicing their beliefs, 2) mimicking the styles of supervising teachers, 3) teaching in the ways in alignment with school’s existing practice, 4) enacting their own ideas, and 5) integrating and balancing occupational socialization and occupational individuation. The study also provided recommendations and implications to policymakers and educators in teacher education so that pre-service teachers can be better supported.

Multiple Case Studies Copyright © 2019 by Nadia Alqahtani and Pengtong Qu is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

The Multiple Case Study Design

DOI link for The Multiple Case Study Design

Get Citation

Most organizations today operate in volatile economic and social environments and qualitative research plays an essential role in investigating leadership and management problems. This unique volume offers novice and experienced researchers a brief, student-centric research methods text specifically devoted to the multiple case study design.

The multiple case study design is a valuable qualitative research tool in studying the links between the personal, social, behavioral, psychological, organizational, cultural, and environmental factors that guide organizational and leadership development. Case study research is essential for the in-depth study of participants' perspectives on the phenomenon within its natural context. Rigorously designed management and leadership case studies in the extant literature have a central focus on individual managers' and leaders' stories and their perceptions of the broader forces operating within and outside their organizations.

This is a comprehensive methodology book exploring the multiple case study design with step-by-step and easily accessible guidelines on the topic, making it especially valuable to researchers, academics, and students in the areas of business, management, and leadership.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 | 6  pages, a refresher on the philosophical foundations of academic research, chapter 2 | 6  pages, research methodologies, chapter 3 | 3  pages, the role of theory in qualitative research, chapter 4 | 6  pages, how does the novice researcher design a multiple case study, chapter 5 | 5  pages, the advantage of the multiple case study design for management researchers, chapter 6 | 6  pages, applying data collection methods in multiple case study research, chapter 7 | 9  pages, the data analysis process for multiple case study research, chapter 8 | 3  pages, extending theory with multiple case study design, chapter 9 | 7  pages, incorporating multiple case design and methodologies into teaching and professional practice, chapter 10 | 9  pages, writing and publishing multiple case study research, chapter 11 | 2  pages, concluding thoughts.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

• Privacy Policy

Home » Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Table of Contents

A case study is a research method that involves an in-depth examination and analysis of a particular phenomenon or case, such as an individual, organization, community, event, or situation.

It is a qualitative research approach that aims to provide a detailed and comprehensive understanding of the case being studied. Case studies typically involve multiple sources of data, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts, which are analyzed using various techniques, such as content analysis, thematic analysis, and grounded theory. The findings of a case study are often used to develop theories, inform policy or practice, or generate new research questions.

Types of Case Study

Types and Methods of Case Study are as follows:

Single-Case Study

A single-case study is an in-depth analysis of a single case. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to understand a specific phenomenon in detail.

For Example , A researcher might conduct a single-case study on a particular individual to understand their experiences with a particular health condition or a specific organization to explore their management practices. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of a single-case study are often used to generate new research questions, develop theories, or inform policy or practice.

Multiple-Case Study

A multiple-case study involves the analysis of several cases that are similar in nature. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to identify similarities and differences between the cases.

For Example, a researcher might conduct a multiple-case study on several companies to explore the factors that contribute to their success or failure. The researcher collects data from each case, compares and contrasts the findings, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as comparative analysis or pattern-matching. The findings of a multiple-case study can be used to develop theories, inform policy or practice, or generate new research questions.

Exploratory Case Study

An exploratory case study is used to explore a new or understudied phenomenon. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to generate hypotheses or theories about the phenomenon.

For Example, a researcher might conduct an exploratory case study on a new technology to understand its potential impact on society. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as grounded theory or content analysis. The findings of an exploratory case study can be used to generate new research questions, develop theories, or inform policy or practice.

Descriptive Case Study

A descriptive case study is used to describe a particular phenomenon in detail. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to provide a comprehensive account of the phenomenon.

For Example, a researcher might conduct a descriptive case study on a particular community to understand its social and economic characteristics. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of a descriptive case study can be used to inform policy or practice or generate new research questions.

Instrumental Case Study

An instrumental case study is used to understand a particular phenomenon that is instrumental in achieving a particular goal. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to understand the role of the phenomenon in achieving the goal.

For Example, a researcher might conduct an instrumental case study on a particular policy to understand its impact on achieving a particular goal, such as reducing poverty. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of an instrumental case study can be used to inform policy or practice or generate new research questions.

Case Study Data Collection Methods

Here are some common data collection methods for case studies:

Interviews involve asking questions to individuals who have knowledge or experience relevant to the case study. Interviews can be structured (where the same questions are asked to all participants) or unstructured (where the interviewer follows up on the responses with further questions). Interviews can be conducted in person, over the phone, or through video conferencing.

Observations

Observations involve watching and recording the behavior and activities of individuals or groups relevant to the case study. Observations can be participant (where the researcher actively participates in the activities) or non-participant (where the researcher observes from a distance). Observations can be recorded using notes, audio or video recordings, or photographs.

Documents can be used as a source of information for case studies. Documents can include reports, memos, emails, letters, and other written materials related to the case study. Documents can be collected from the case study participants or from public sources.

Surveys involve asking a set of questions to a sample of individuals relevant to the case study. Surveys can be administered in person, over the phone, through mail or email, or online. Surveys can be used to gather information on attitudes, opinions, or behaviors related to the case study.

Artifacts are physical objects relevant to the case study. Artifacts can include tools, equipment, products, or other objects that provide insights into the case study phenomenon.

How to conduct Case Study Research

Conducting a case study research involves several steps that need to be followed to ensure the quality and rigor of the study. Here are the steps to conduct case study research:

• Define the research questions: The first step in conducting a case study research is to define the research questions. The research questions should be specific, measurable, and relevant to the case study phenomenon under investigation.
• Select the case: The next step is to select the case or cases to be studied. The case should be relevant to the research questions and should provide rich and diverse data that can be used to answer the research questions.
• Collect data: Data can be collected using various methods, such as interviews, observations, documents, surveys, and artifacts. The data collection method should be selected based on the research questions and the nature of the case study phenomenon.
• Analyze the data: The data collected from the case study should be analyzed using various techniques, such as content analysis, thematic analysis, or grounded theory. The analysis should be guided by the research questions and should aim to provide insights and conclusions relevant to the research questions.
• Draw conclusions: The conclusions drawn from the case study should be based on the data analysis and should be relevant to the research questions. The conclusions should be supported by evidence and should be clearly stated.
• Validate the findings: The findings of the case study should be validated by reviewing the data and the analysis with participants or other experts in the field. This helps to ensure the validity and reliability of the findings.
• Write the report: The final step is to write the report of the case study research. The report should provide a clear description of the case study phenomenon, the research questions, the data collection methods, the data analysis, the findings, and the conclusions. The report should be written in a clear and concise manner and should follow the guidelines for academic writing.

Examples of Case Study

Here are some examples of case study research:

• The Hawthorne Studies : Conducted between 1924 and 1932, the Hawthorne Studies were a series of case studies conducted by Elton Mayo and his colleagues to examine the impact of work environment on employee productivity. The studies were conducted at the Hawthorne Works plant of the Western Electric Company in Chicago and included interviews, observations, and experiments.
• The Stanford Prison Experiment: Conducted in 1971, the Stanford Prison Experiment was a case study conducted by Philip Zimbardo to examine the psychological effects of power and authority. The study involved simulating a prison environment and assigning participants to the role of guards or prisoners. The study was controversial due to the ethical issues it raised.
• The Challenger Disaster: The Challenger Disaster was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion in 1986. The study included interviews, observations, and analysis of data to identify the technical, organizational, and cultural factors that contributed to the disaster.
• The Enron Scandal: The Enron Scandal was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the Enron Corporation’s bankruptcy in 2001. The study included interviews, analysis of financial data, and review of documents to identify the accounting practices, corporate culture, and ethical issues that led to the company’s downfall.
• The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster : The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the nuclear accident that occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan in 2011. The study included interviews, analysis of data, and review of documents to identify the technical, organizational, and cultural factors that contributed to the disaster.

Application of Case Study

Case studies have a wide range of applications across various fields and industries. Here are some examples:

Business and Management

Case studies are widely used in business and management to examine real-life situations and develop problem-solving skills. Case studies can help students and professionals to develop a deep understanding of business concepts, theories, and best practices.

Case studies are used in healthcare to examine patient care, treatment options, and outcomes. Case studies can help healthcare professionals to develop critical thinking skills, diagnose complex medical conditions, and develop effective treatment plans.

Case studies are used in education to examine teaching and learning practices. Case studies can help educators to develop effective teaching strategies, evaluate student progress, and identify areas for improvement.

Social Sciences

Case studies are widely used in social sciences to examine human behavior, social phenomena, and cultural practices. Case studies can help researchers to develop theories, test hypotheses, and gain insights into complex social issues.

Law and Ethics

Case studies are used in law and ethics to examine legal and ethical dilemmas. Case studies can help lawyers, policymakers, and ethical professionals to develop critical thinking skills, analyze complex cases, and make informed decisions.

Purpose of Case Study

The purpose of a case study is to provide a detailed analysis of a specific phenomenon, issue, or problem in its real-life context. A case study is a qualitative research method that involves the in-depth exploration and analysis of a particular case, which can be an individual, group, organization, event, or community.

The primary purpose of a case study is to generate a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the case, including its history, context, and dynamics. Case studies can help researchers to identify and examine the underlying factors, processes, and mechanisms that contribute to the case and its outcomes. This can help to develop a more accurate and detailed understanding of the case, which can inform future research, practice, or policy.

Case studies can also serve other purposes, including:

• Illustrating a theory or concept: Case studies can be used to illustrate and explain theoretical concepts and frameworks, providing concrete examples of how they can be applied in real-life situations.
• Developing hypotheses: Case studies can help to generate hypotheses about the causal relationships between different factors and outcomes, which can be tested through further research.
• Providing insight into complex issues: Case studies can provide insights into complex and multifaceted issues, which may be difficult to understand through other research methods.
• Informing practice or policy: Case studies can be used to inform practice or policy by identifying best practices, lessons learned, or areas for improvement.

Advantages of Case Study Research

There are several advantages of case study research, including:

• In-depth exploration: Case study research allows for a detailed exploration and analysis of a specific phenomenon, issue, or problem in its real-life context. This can provide a comprehensive understanding of the case and its dynamics, which may not be possible through other research methods.
• Rich data: Case study research can generate rich and detailed data, including qualitative data such as interviews, observations, and documents. This can provide a nuanced understanding of the case and its complexity.
• Holistic perspective: Case study research allows for a holistic perspective of the case, taking into account the various factors, processes, and mechanisms that contribute to the case and its outcomes. This can help to develop a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the case.
• Theory development: Case study research can help to develop and refine theories and concepts by providing empirical evidence and concrete examples of how they can be applied in real-life situations.
• Practical application: Case study research can inform practice or policy by identifying best practices, lessons learned, or areas for improvement.
• Contextualization: Case study research takes into account the specific context in which the case is situated, which can help to understand how the case is influenced by the social, cultural, and historical factors of its environment.

Limitations of Case Study Research

There are several limitations of case study research, including:

• Limited generalizability : Case studies are typically focused on a single case or a small number of cases, which limits the generalizability of the findings. The unique characteristics of the case may not be applicable to other contexts or populations, which may limit the external validity of the research.
• Biased sampling: Case studies may rely on purposive or convenience sampling, which can introduce bias into the sample selection process. This may limit the representativeness of the sample and the generalizability of the findings.
• Subjectivity: Case studies rely on the interpretation of the researcher, which can introduce subjectivity into the analysis. The researcher’s own biases, assumptions, and perspectives may influence the findings, which may limit the objectivity of the research.
• Limited control: Case studies are typically conducted in naturalistic settings, which limits the control that the researcher has over the environment and the variables being studied. This may limit the ability to establish causal relationships between variables.
• Time-consuming: Case studies can be time-consuming to conduct, as they typically involve a detailed exploration and analysis of a specific case. This may limit the feasibility of conducting multiple case studies or conducting case studies in a timely manner.
• Resource-intensive: Case studies may require significant resources, including time, funding, and expertise. This may limit the ability of researchers to conduct case studies in resource-constrained settings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Mixed Methods Research – Types & Analysis

Experimental Design – Types, Methods, Guide

Textual Analysis – Types, Examples and Guide

Basic Research – Types, Methods and Examples

Explanatory Research – Types, Methods, Guide

Multiple Case Study Analysis

Robert e. stake.

• description E xamining situational complexity is a vital part of social and behavioral science research. This engaging text provides an effective process for studying multiple cases—such as sets of teachers, staff development sessions, or clinics operating in different locations—within one complex program. The process also can be used to investigate broadly occurring phenomena without programmatic links, such as leadership or sibling rivalry. Readers learn to design, analyze, and report studies that balance common issues across the group of cases with the unique features and context of each case. Three actual case reports from a transnational early childhood program illustrate the author's approach, and helpful reproducible worksheets facilitate multicase recording and analysis. -->
• sample chapter
• Author's website
• All titles by Robert E. Stake
• companion website

Short and sweet: multiple mini case studies as a form of rigorous case study research

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 15 May 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Sebastian Käss   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0640-3500 1 ,
• Christoph Brosig   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7809-0796 1 ,
• Markus Westner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6623-880X 2 &
• Susanne Strahringer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9465-9679 1  

766 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Case study research is one of the most widely used research methods in Information Systems (IS). In recent years, an increasing number of publications have used case studies with few sources of evidence, such as single interviews per case. While there is much methodological guidance on rigorously conducting multiple case studies, it remains unclear how researchers can achieve an acceptable level of rigour for this emerging type of multiple case study with few sources of evidence, i.e., multiple mini case studies. In this context, we synthesise methodological guidance for multiple case study research from a cross-disciplinary perspective to develop an analytical framework. Furthermore, we calibrate this analytical framework to multiple mini case studies by reviewing previous IS publications that use multiple mini case studies to provide guidelines to conduct multiple mini case studies rigorously. We also offer a conceptual definition of multiple mini case studies, distinguish them from other research approaches, and position multiple mini case studies as a pragmatic and rigorous approach to research emerging and innovative phenomena in IS.

Similar content being viewed by others

The theory contribution of case study research designs

Case Study Research

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Case study research has become a widely used research method in Information Systems (IS) research (Palvia et al. 2015 ) that allows for a comprehensive analysis of a contemporary phenomenon in its real-world context (Dubé and Paré, 2003 ). This research method is particularly useful due to its flexibility in covering complex phenomena with multiple contextual variables, different types of evidence, and a wide range of analytical options (Voss et al. 2002 ; Yin 2018 ). Although case study research is particularly useful for studying contemporary phenomena, some researchers feel that it lacks rigour, particularly in terms of the validity of findings (Lee and Hubona 2009 ). In response to these criticisms, Yin ( 2018 ) provides comprehensive methodological steps to conduct case studies rigorously. In addition, many other publications with a partly discipline-specific view on case study research, offer guidelines for achieving rigour in case study research, e.g., Benbasat et al. ( 1987 ), Dubé and Paré ( 2003 ), Pan and Tan ( 2011 ), or Voss et al. ( 2002 ). Most publications on case study methodology converge on four criteria for ensuring rigour in case study research: (1) construct validity, (2) internal validity, (3) external validity, and (4) reliability (Gibbert et al. 2008 ; Voss et al. 2002 ; Yin 2018 ).

A key element of rigour in case study research is to look at the unit of analysis of a case from multiple perspectives in order to draw informed conclusions (Dubois and Gadde 2002 ). Case study researchers refer to this as triangulation, for example, by using multiple sources of evidence per case to support findings (Benbasat et al. 1987 ; Yin 2018 ). However, in our own research experience, we have come across numerous IS publications with a limited number of sources of evidence per case, such as a single interview per case. Some researchers refer to these studies as mini case studies (e.g., McBride 2009 ; Weill and Olson 1989 ), while others refer to them as multiple mini cases (e.g., Eisenhardt 1989 ). We were unable to find a definition or conceptualisation of this type of case study. Therefore, we will refer to this type of case study as a multiple mini case study (MMCS). Interestingly, many researchers use these MMCSs to study emerging and innovative phenomena.

From a methodological perspective, multiple case study publications with limited sources of evidence, also known as MMCSs, may face criticism for their lack of rigour (Dubé and Paré 2003 ). Alternatively, they may be referred to as “marginal case studies” (Piekkari et al. 2009 , p. 575) if they fail to establish a connection between theory and empirical evidence, provide only limited context, or merely offer illustrative aspects (Piekkari et al. 2009 ). IS scholars advocate conducting case study research in a mindful manner by balancing methodological blueprints and justified design choices (Keutel et al. 2014 ). Consequently, we propose MMCSs as a mindful approach with the potential for rigour, distinguishing them from marginal case studies. The following research question guides our study:

RQ: How can researchers rigorously conduct MMCSs in the IS discipline?

As shown in Fig.  1 , we develop an analytical framework by synthesising methodological guidance on how to rigorously conduct multiple case study research. We then address three aspects of our research question: For aspect (1), we analyse published MMCSs in the IS discipline to derive a "Research in Practice" definition of MMCSs and research situations for MMCSs. For aspect (2), we use the analytical framework to analyse how researchers in the IS discipline ensure that existing MMCSs follow a rigorous methodology. For aspect (3), we discuss the methodological findings about rigorous MMCSs in order to derive methodological guidelines for MMCSs that researchers in the IS discipline can follow.

Overview of the research approach

We approach these aspects by introducing the conceptual foundation for case study research in Sect.  2 . We define commonly accepted criteria for ensuring validity in case study research, introduce the concept of MMCSs, and distinguish them from other types of case studies. Furthermore, as a basis for analysis, we present an analytical framework of methodological steps and options for the rigorous conduct of multiple case study research. Section  3 presents our methodological approach to identifying published MMCSs in the IS discipline. In Sect.  4 , we first define MMCSs from a research in practice perspective (Sect.  4.1 ). Second, we present an overview of methodological options for rigorous MMCSs based on our analytical framework (Sect.  4.2 ). In Sect.  5 , we differentiate MMCSs from other research approaches, identify research situations of MMCSs (i.e., to study emerging and innovative phenomena), and provide guidance on how to ensure rigour in MMCSs. In our conclusion, we clarify the limitations of our study and provide an outlook for future research with MMCSs.

2 Conceptual foundation

2.1 case study research.

Case study research is about understanding phenomena by studying one or multiple cases in their context. Creswell and Poth ( 2016 ) define it as an “approach in which the investigator explores a bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection” (p. 73). Therefore, it is suitable for complex topics with little available knowledge, needing an in-depth investigation, or where the research subject is inseparable from its context (Paré 2004 ). Additionally, Yin ( 2018 ) states that case study research is useful if the research focuses on contemporary events where no control of behavioural events is required. Typically, this type of research is most suitable for how and why research questions (Yin 2018 ). Eventually, the inferences from case study research are based on analytic or logical generalisation (Yin 2018 ). Instead of drawing conclusions from a representative statistical sample towards the population, case study research builds on analytical findings from the observed cases (Dubois and Gadde 2002 ; Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007 ). Case studies can be descriptive, exploratory, or explanatory (Dubé and Paré 2003 ).

The contribution of research to theory can be divided into the steps of theory building , development and testing , which is a continuum (Ridder 2017 ; Welch et al. 2011 ), and case studies are useful at all stages (Ridder 2017 ). In theory building, there is no theory to explain a phenomenon, and the researcher identifies new concepts, constructs, and relationships based on the data (Ridder 2017 ). In theory development, a tentative theory already exists that is extended or refined (e.g., by adding new antecedents, moderators, mediators, and outcomes) (Ridder 2017 ). In theory testing, an existing theory is challenged through empirical investigation (Ridder 2017 ).

In case study research, there are different paradigms for obtaining research results, either positivist or interpretivist (Dubé and Paré 2003 ; Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991 ). The positivist paradigm assumes that a set of variables and relationships can be objectively identified by the researcher (Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991 ). In contrast, the interpretivist paradigm assumes that the results are inherently rooted in the researcher’s worldview (Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991 ). Nowadays, researchers find that there are similar numbers of positivist and interpretivist case studies in the IS discipline compared to almost 20 years ago when positivist research was perceived as dominant (Keutel et al. 2014 ; Klein and Myers 1999 ). As we aim to understand how to conduct MMCSs rigorously, we focus on methodological guidance for positivist case study research.

The literature proposes a four-phased approach to conducting a case study: (1) the definition of the research design, (2) the data collection, (3) the data analysis, and (4) the composition (Yin 2018 ). Table 1 provides an overview and explanation of the four phases.

Case studies can be classified based on their depth and breadth, as shown in Fig.  2 . We can distinguish five types of case studies: in-depth single case studies , marginal case studies , multiple case studies , MMCSs , and extensive in-depth multiple case studies . Each type has distinct characteristics, yet the boundaries between the different types of case studies is blurred. Except for the marginal case studies, the italic references in Fig.  2 are well-established publications that define the respective type and provide methodological guidance. The shading is to visualise the different types of case studies. The italic references in Fig.  2 for marginal case studies refer to publications that conceptualise them.

Simplistic conceptualisation of MMCS

In-depth single case studies focus on a single bounded system as a case (Creswell and Poth 2016 ; Paré 2004 ; Yin 2018 ). According to the literature, a single case study should only be used if a case meets one or more of the following five characteristics: it is a critical, unusual, common, revelatory, or longitudinal case (Benbasat et al. 1987 ; Yin 2018 ). Single case studies are more often used for descriptive research (Dubé and Paré 2003 ).

A second type of case studies are marginal case studies , which generally have low depth (Keutel et al. 2014 ; Piekkari et al. 2009 ). Marginal case studies lack a clear link between theory and empirical evidence, a clear contextualisation of the case, and are often used for illustration purposes (Keutel et al. 2014 ; Piekkari et al. 2009 ). Therefore, marginal case studies provide only marginal insights with a lack of generalisability.

In contrast, multiple case studies employ multiple cases to obtain a broader picture of the researched phenomenon from different perspectives (Creswell and Poth 2016 ; Paré 2004 ; Yin 2018 ). These multiple case studies are often considered to provide more robust results due to the multiplicity of their insights (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007 ). However, often discussed criticisms of multiple case studies are high costs, difficult access to multiple sources of evidence for each case, and long duration (Dubé and Paré 2003 ; Meredith 1998 ; Voss et al. 2002 ). Eisenhardt ( 1989 ) considers four to ten in-depth cases as a suitable number of cases for multiple case study research. With fewer than four cases, the empirical grounding is less convincing, and with more than ten cases, researchers quickly get overwhelmed by the complexity and volume of data (Eisenhardt 1989 ). Therefore, methodological literature views extensive in-depth multiple case studies as almost infeasible due to their high complexity and resource demands, which can easily overwhelm the research team and the readers (Stake 2013 ). Hence, we could not find a methodological publication outlining the approach for this case study type.

To solve the complexity and resource issues for multiple case studies, a new phenomenon has emerged: MMCS . An MMCS is a special type of multiple case study that focuses on an investigation's breadth by using a relatively high number of cases while having a somewhat limited depth per case. We characterise breadth not only by the number of cases but also by the variety of the cases. Even though there is no formal conceptualisation of the term, we understand MMCSs as a type of multiple case study research with few sources of evidence per case. Due to the limited depth per case, one can overcome the resource and complexity issues of classical multiple case studies. However, having only some sources of evidence per case may be considered a threat to rigour. Therefore, in this publication, we provide suggestions on how to address these threats.

2.2 Rigour in case study research

Rigour is essential for case study research (Dubé and Paré 2003 ; Yin 2018 ) and, in the early 2000s, researchers criticised case study research for inadequate rigour (e.g., Dubé and Paré 2003 ; Gibbert et al. 2008 ). Based on this, various methodological publications provide guidance for rigorous case study research (e.g., Dubé and Paré 2003 ; Gibbert et al. 2008 ).

Methodological literature proposes four criteria to ensure rigour in case study research: Construct validity , internal validity , external validity , and reliability (Dubé and Paré 2003 ; Gibbert et al. 2008 ; Yin 2018 ). Table 2 outlines these criteria and states in which research phase they should be addressed (Yin 2018 ). Methodological literature agrees that all four criteria must be met for rigorous case study research (Dubé and Paré 2003 ).

The methodological literature discusses multiple options for achieving rigour in case study research (e.g., Benbasat et al. 1987 ; Dubé and Paré 2003 ; Eisenhardt 1989 ; Yin 2018 ). We aggregated guidance from multiple sources by conducting a cross-disciplinary literature review to build our analytical foundation (cf. Fig. 1 ). This literature review aims to identify the most relevant multiple case study methodology publications from a cross-disciplinary and IS-specific perspective. We focus on the most cited methodology publications, while being aware that this may over-represent disciplines with a higher number of case study publications. However, this approach helps to capture an implicit consensus among case study researchers on how to conduct multiple case studies rigorously. The literature review produced an analytical framework of methodological steps and options for conducting multiple case studies rigorously. Appendix A Footnote 1 provides a detailed documentation of the literature review process. The analytical framework derived from the set of methodological publications is presented in Table  3 . We identified required and optional steps for each research stage. The analytical framework is the basis for the further analysis of MMCS and an explanation of all methodological steps is provided in Appendix B. Footnote 2

3 Research methodology

For our research, we analysed published MMCSs in the IS discipline with the goal of understanding how these publications ensured rigour. This section outlines the methodology of how we identified our MMCS publications.

First, we searched bibliographic databases and citation indexing services (Vom Brocke et al. 2009 ; Vom Brocke et al. 2015 ) to retrieve IS-specific MMCSs (Hanelt et al. 2015 ). As shown in Fig.  3 , we used two sets of keywords, the first set focusing on multiple case studies and the second set explicitly on mini case studies. We decided to follow this approach as many MMCSs are positioned as multiple case studies, avoiding the connotation “mini” or “short”. We restricted our search to completed research publications written in English from litbaskets.io size “S”, a set of 29 highly ranked IS journals (Boell and Wang 2019 ) Footnote 3 and leading IS conference proceedings from AMCIS, ECIS, HICSS, ICIS, and PACIS (published until end of June 2023). We focused on these outlets, as they can be taken as a representative sample of high quality IS research (Gogan et al. 2014 ; Sørensen and Landau 2015 ).

The search process for published MMCSs in the IS discipline

Second, we screened the obtained set of IS publications to identify MMCSs. We only included publications with positivist multiple cases where the majority of cases was captured with only one primary source of evidence. Further, we excluded all publications which were interview studies rather than case studies (i.e., they do not have a clearly defined case). In some cases, it was unclear from the full text whether a publication fulfils this requirement. Therefore, we contacted the authors and clarified the research methodology with them. Eventually, our final set contained 50 publications using MMCSs.

For qualitative data analysis, we employed axial coding (Recker 2012 ) based on the pre-defined analytical framework shown in Table  3 . For the coding, we followed the explanations of the authors in the manuscripts. The coding was conducted and reviewed by two of the authors. We coded the first five publications of the set of IS MMCS publications together and discussed our decisions. After the initial coding was completed, we checked the reliability and validity by re-coding a sample of the other author’s set. In this sample, we achieved inter-coder reliability of 91% as a percent agreement in the decisions made (Nili et al. 2020 ). Hence, we consider our coding as highly consistent.

In the results section, we illustrate the chosen methodological steps for each MMCS type (descriptive, exploratory, and explanatory). For this purpose, we selected three publications based on two criteria: only journal publications, as they have more details about their methodological steps and publications which applied most of the analytical framework’s methodology steps. This led to three exemplary IS MMCS publications: (1) McBride ( 2009 ) for descriptive MMCSs, (2) Baker and Niederman ( 2014 ) for exploratory MMCSs, and (3) van de Weerd et al. ( 2016 ) for explanatory MMCSs.

4.1 MMCS from a “Research in Practice" perspective

In this section, we explain MMCSs from a "Research in Practice" perspective and identify different types based on our sample of 50 MMCS publications. As outlined in Sect.  2.1 , an MMCS is a special type of a multiple case study, which focuses on an investigation’s breadth by using a relatively high number of cases while having a limited depth per case. In the most extreme scenario, an MMCS only has one source of evidence per case. Moreover, breadth is not only characterised by the number of cases, but also by the variety of the cases. MMCSs have been used widely but hardly labelled as such, i.e., only 10 of our analysed 50 MMCS publications explicitly use the terms mini or short case in the manuscript . Multiple case study research distinguishes between descriptive, exploratory, and explanatory case studies (Dubé and Paré 2003 ). The MMCSs in our sample follow the same classification with three descriptive, 40 exploratory, and seven explanatory MMCSs. Descriptive and exploratory MMCSs are used in the early stages of research , and exploratory and explanatory MMCSs are used to corroborate findings .

Descriptive MMCSs provide little information on the methodological steps for the design, data collection, analysis, and presentation of results. They are used to illustrate novel phenomena and create research questions, not solutions, and can be useful for developing research agendas (e.g., McBride 2009 ; Weill and Olson 1989 ). The descriptive MMCS publications analysed contained between four to six cases, with an average of 4.6 cases per publication. Of the descriptive MMCSs analysed, one did not state research questions, one answered a how question and the third answered how and what questions. Descriptive MMCSs are illustrative and have a low depth per case, resulting in the highest risk of being considered a marginal case study.

Exploratory MMCSs are used to explore new phenomena quickly, generate first research results, and corroborate findings. Most of the analysed exploratory MMCSs answer what and how questions or combinations. However, six publications do not explicitly state a research question, and some MMCSs use why, which, or whether research questions. The analysed exploratory MMCSs have three to 27 cases, with an average of 10.2 cases per publication. An example of an exploratory MMCS is the study by Baker and Niederman ( 2014 ), who explore the impacts of strategic alignment during merger and acquisition (M&A) processes. They argue that previous research with multiple case studies (mostly with  three cases) shows some commonalities, but much remains unclear due to the low number of cases. Moreover, they justify the limited depth of their research with the “proprietary and sensitive nature of the questions” (Baker and Niederman 2014 , p. 123).

Explanatory MMCSs use an a priori framework with a relatively high number of cases to find groups of cases that share similar characteristics. Most explanatory MMCSs answer how questions, yet some publications answer what, why, or combinations of the three questions. The analysed explanatory MMCSs have three to 18 cases, with an average of 7.2 cases per publication. An example of an explanatory MMCS publication is van de Weerd et al. ( 2016 ), who researched the influence of organisational factors on the adoption of Software as a Service (SaaS) in Indonesia.

4.2 Applied MMCS methodology in IS publications

4.2.1 overarching.

In the following sections, we present the results of our analysis. For this purpose, we mapped our 50 IS MMCS publications to the methodological options (Table  3 ) and present one example per MMCS type. We extended some methodological steps with options from methodology-in-use. A full coding table can be found in Appendix D Footnote 4 . Tables 4 , 5 , 6 and 7 summarise the absolute and percentual occurrences of each methodological option in descriptive, exploratory, and explanatory IS MMCS publications. All tables are structured in the same way and show the number of absolute and, in parentheses, the percentual occurrences of each methodological option. The percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. The bold numbers show the most common methodological option for each MMCS type and step. Most publications were classified in previously identified options. Some IS MMCS publications lacked detail on methodological steps, so we classified them as "step not evident". Only 16% (8 out of 50) explained how they addressed validity and reliability threats.

4.2.2 Research design phase

There are six methodological steps in the research design phase, as shown in Table  4 . Descriptive MMCSs usually define the research question (2 out of 3, 67%), clarify the unit of analysis (2 out of 3, 67%), bound the case (2 out of 3, 67%), or specify an a priori theoretical framework (2 out of 3, 67%). The case replication logic is mostly not evident (2 out of 3, 67%). Descriptive MMCS use a criterion-based selection (1 out of 3, 33%), a maximum variation selection (1 out of 3, 33%), or do not specify the selection logic (1 out of 3, 33%). Descriptive MMCSs have a high risk of becoming a marginal case study due to their illustrative nature–our chosen example is not different. McBride ( 2009 ) does not define the research question, does not have a priori theoretical framework, nor does he justify the case replication and the case selection logic. However, he clarifies the unit of analysis and extensively bounds each case with significant context about the case organisation and its setup.

The majority of exploratory MMCSs define the research question (34 out of 40, 85%) clarify the unit of analysis (35 out of 40, 88%), and specify an a priori theoretical framework (33 out of 40, 83%). However, only a minority (6 out of 40, 15%) follow the instructions of bounding the case or justify the case replication logic (13 out of 40, 33%). The most used case selection logic is the criterion-based selection (23 out of 40, 58%), followed by step not evident (5 out of 40, 13%), other selection approaches (3 of 40, 13%), maximum variation selection (3 out of 40, 13%), a combination of approaches (2 out of 40, 5%), snowball selection (2 out of 40, 5%), typical case selection (1 out of 40, 3%), and convenience-based selection (1 out of 40, 3%). Baker and Niederman ( 2014 ) build their exploratory MMCS on previous multiple case studies with three cases that showed ambiguous results. Hence, Baker and Niederman ( 2014 ) formulate three research objectives instead of defining a research question. They clearly define the unit of analysis (i.e., the integration of the IS function after M&A) but lack the bounding of the case. The authors use a rather complex a priori framework, leading to a high number of required cases. This a priori framework is also used for the “theoretical replication logic [to choose] conforming and disconfirming cases” (Baker and Niederman 2014 , p. 116). A combination of maximum variation and snowball selection is used to select the cases (Baker and Niederman 2014 ). The maximum variation is chosen to get evidence for all elements of their rather complex a priori framework (i.e., the breadth), and the snowball sampling is chosen to get more details for each framework element.

All explanatory MMCS s define the research question, clarify the unit of analysis, and specify an a priori theoretical framework. However, only one (14%) bounds the case. The case replication logic is mostly a mixture of theoretical and literal replication (3 out of 7, 43%) and one (14%) MMCS does a literal replication. For 43% (3 out of 7) of the publications, the step is not evident. Most explanatory MMCSs use criterion-based selection (4 out of 7, 57%), followed by maximum variation selection (2 out of 7, 29%) and snowball selection (1 out of 7, 14%). In their publication, van de Weerd et al. ( 2016 ) define the research question and clarify the unit of analysis (i.e., the influence of organisational factors on SaaS adoption in Indonesian SMEs). Further, they specify an a priori framework (i.e., based on organisational size, organisational readiness, and top management support) to target the research (van de Weerd et al. 2016 ). A combination of theoretical (between the groups of cases) and literal (within the groups of cases) replication was used. To strengthen the findings, van de Weerd et al. ( 2016 ) find at least one other literally replicated case for each theoretically replicated case.

To summarize this phase, we see that in all three types of MMCSs, the majority of publications define the research question, clarify the unit of analysis, and specify an a priori theoretical framework. Moreover, descriptive MMCSs are more likely to bound the case than exploratory and explanatory MMCSs. However, only a minority across all MMCSs justify the case replication logic, whereas the majority does not. Most MMCSs justify the case selection logic, with criterion-based case selection being the most often applied methodological option.

4.2.3 Data collection phase

In the data collection phase, there are four methodological steps, as summarised in Table  5 .

One descriptive MMCS applies triangulation via multiple sources, whereas for the majority (2 out of 3, 67%), the step is not evident. One (33%) of the analysed descriptive MMCSs creates a full chain of evidence, none creates a case study database, and one (33%) uses a case study protocol. McBride ( 2009 ) applies triangulation via multiple sources, as he followed “up practitioner talks delivered at several UK annual conferences” (McBride 2009 , p. 237). Therefore, we view the follow-up interviews as the primary source of evidence per case, as dedicated questions to the unit of analysis can be asked per case. Triangulation via multiple sources was then conducted by combining practitioner talks and documents with follow-up interviews. McBride ( 2009 ) does not create a full chain of evidence, a case study database, nor a case study protocol. This design decision might be rooted in the objective of a descriptive MMCS to illustrate and open up new questions rather than find clear solutions (McBride 2009 ).

Most exploratory MMCSs triangulate via multiple sources (20 out of 40, 50%) or via multiple investigators (4 out of 40, 10%). Eight (20%) exploratory MMCSs apply multiple triangulation types and for eight (20%), no triangulation is evident. At first glance, a triangulation via multiple sources may seem contradictory to the definition of MMCSs–yet it is not. MMCSs that triangulate via multiple sources have one source per case as the primary, detailed evidence (e.g., an interview), which is combined with easily available supplementary sources of evidence (e.g., public reports and documents (Baker and Niederman 2014 ), press articles (Hahn et al. 2015 ), or online data (Kunduru and Bandi 2019 )). As this leads to multiple sources of evidence, we understand this as a triangulation via multiple sources; however, on a different level than triangulating via multiple in-depth interviews per case. Only a minority of exploratory MMCSs create a full chain of evidence (14 out of 40, 35%), and a majority (23 out of 40, 58%) use a case study database or a case study protocol (20 out of 40, 50%). Baker and Niederman ( 2014 ) triangulate with multiple sources (i.e., financial reports as supplementary sources) to increase the validity of their research. Further, the authors create a full chain of evidence from their research question through an identical interview protocol to the case study’s results. For every case, an individual case report is created and stored in the case study database (Baker and Niederman 2014 ).

All explanatory MMCSs triangulate during the data collection phase, either via multiple sources (2 out of 7, 29%) or a combination of multiple investigators and sources (5 out of 7, 71%). Interestingly, only three explanatory MMCSs (43%) create a full chain of evidence. All create a case study database (7 out of 7, 100%) and the majority creates a case study protocol (6 out of 7, 86%). In their explanatory MMCS, van de Weerd et al. ( 2016 ) use semi-structured interviews as the primary data collection method. The interview data is complemented “with field notes and (online) documentation” (van de Weerd et al. 2016 , p. 919), e.g., data from corporate websites or annual reports. Moreover, a case study protocol and a case study database in NVivo are created to increase reliability.

To summarise the data collection phase, we see that most (40 out of 50, 80%) of MMCSs apply some type of triangulation. However, only 36% (18 out of 50) of the analysed MMCSs create a full chain of evidence. Moreover, descriptive MMCSs are less likely to create a case study database (0 out of 3, 0%) or a case study protocol (1 out of 3, 33%). In contrast, most exploratory and explanatory MMCS publications create a case study database and case study protocol.

4.2.4 Data analysis phase

There are three methodological steps (cf. Table 6 ) for the data analysis phase, each with multiple methodological options.

One descriptive MMCS (33%) corroborates findings through triangulation, and two do not (67%). Further, one (33%) uses a rich description of findings as other corroboration approaches, whereas for the majority (2 out of 3, 67%), the corroboration with other approaches is not evident. Descriptive MMCSs mostly do not define their within-case analysis strategy (2 out of 3, 67%). However, pre-defined patterns are used to conduct a cross-case analysis (2 out of 3, 67%). In the data analysis, McBride ( 2009 ) triangulates via multiple sources of evidence (i.e., talks at practitioner conferences and resulting follow-up interviews), but does not apply other corroboration approaches or provides methodological explanations for the within or cross-case analysis. This design decision might be rooted in the illustrative nature of his descriptive MMCS and the focus on analysing each case standalone.

Exploratory MMCSs mostly corroborate findings through a combination of triangulation via multiple investigators and sources (15 out of 40, 38%) or triangulation via multiple sources (9 out of 40, 23%). However, for ten (25%) exploratory MMCSs, this step is not evident. For the other corroboration approaches, a combination of approaches is mostly used (15 out of 40, 38%), followed by rich description of findings (11 out of 40, 28%), peer review (6 out of 40, 15%), and prolonged field visits (1 out of 40, 3%). For five (13%) publications, other corroboration approaches are not evident. Pattern matching (17 out of 40, 43%) and explanation building (5 out of 40, 13%) are the most used methodological options for the within-case analysis. To conduct a cross-case analysis, 11 (28%) MMCSs use a comparison of pairs or groups of cases, nine (23%) pre-defined patterns, and six (15%) structure their data along themes. Interestingly, for 14 (35%) exploratory MMCSs, no methodological step to conduct the cross-case analysis is evident. Baker and Niederman ( 2014 ) use a combination of triangulation via multiple investigators (“The interviews were coded by both researchers independently […], with a subsequent discussion to reach complete agreement” (Baker and Niederman 2014 , p. 117)) and sources to increase internal validity. Moreover, the authors use a rich description of the findings. An explanation-building strategy is used for the within-case analysis, and the cross-case analysis is done based on pre-defined patterns (Baker and Niederman 2014 ). This decision for the cross-case analysis is justified by a citation of Dubé and Paré ( 2003 , p. 619), who see it as “a form of pattern-matching in which the analysis of the case study is carried out by building a textual explanation of the case.”

Explanatory MMCSs corroborate findings through a triangulation via multiple sources (4 out of 7, 57%) or a combination of multiple investigators and sources (3 out of 7, 43%). For the other corroboration approaches, a rich description of findings (3 out of 7, 43%), a combination of approaches (3 out of 7, 43%), or peer review (1 out of 7, 14%) are used. To conduct a within-case analysis, pattern matching (5 out of 7, 71%) or explanation building (1 out of 7, 14%) are used. For the cross-case analysis, pre-defined patterns (3 out of 7, 43%) and a comparison of pairs or groups of cases (2 out of 7, 29%) are used; yet, for two (29%) explanatory MMCSs a cross-case analysis step is not evident. van de Weerd et al. ( 2016 ) corroborate their findings through a triangulation via multiple sources, a combination of rich description of findings and solicitation of participants’ views (“summarizing the interview results of each case company for feedback and approval” (van de Weerd et al. 2016 , p. 920)) as other corroboration approaches. Moreover, for the within-case analysis, the authors “followed an explanation-building procedure to strengthen […] [the] internal validity” (van de Weerd et al. 2016 , p. 920). For the cross-case, the researchers compare groups of cases. They refer to this approach as an informal qualitative comparative analysis.

To summarize the results of the data analysis phase, we see that some type of triangulation is used by most of the MMCSs, with source triangulation (alone or in combination with another approach) being the most often used methodological option. For the within-case analysis, pattern matching (22 of 50, 44%) is the most often used methodological option. For the cross-case analysis, pre-defined patterns are most often used (14 out of 50, 28%). However, depending on the type of MMCS, there are differences in the options used and some methodological options are never used (e.g., time-series analysis and solicitation of participants’ views).

4.2.5 Composition phase

We can find two methodological steps for the composition phase, as summarized in Table  7 .

Descriptive MMCSs do not apply triangulation in the composition phase (3 out of 3, 100%), nor do they use the methodological step to let key informants review the draft of the case study report (3 of 3, 100%). Also, the descriptive MMCS by McBride ( 2009 ) does not apply any of the methodological steps.

Exploratory MMCSs mostly use triangulation via multiple sources (25 out of 40, 63%), a combination of multiple sources and theories (2 out of 40, 5%), triangulation via multiple investigators (1 out of 40, 3%), and a combination of multiple sources and methods (1 out of 40, 3%). However, for 11 (28%) exploratory MMCS publications, no triangulation step is evident. Moreover, the majority (24 out of 40, 85%) do not let key informants review a draft of the case study report. Baker and Niederman ( 2014 ) do not use triangulation in the composition phase nor let key informants review the draft of the case study report. An example of an exploratory publication that applies both methodological steps is the publication by Kurnia et al. ( 2015 ). The authors triangulate via multiple sources and let key informants review their interview transcripts and the case study report to increase construct validity.

Explanatory MMCSs mostly use triangulation via multiple sources (5 out of 7, 71%) and for two (29%), the step is not evident. Furthermore, only two MMCS (29%) publications let key informants review the draft of the case study report, whereas the majority (5 out of 7, 71%) do not. In their publication , van de Weerd et al. ( 2016 ) use both methodological steps of the composition phase. The authors triangulate via multiple sources by presenting interview snippets from different cases for each result in the case study manuscript. Moreover, each case and the final case study report were shared with key informants for review and approval to reduce the risk of misinterpretations and increase construct validity.

To summarize, most exploratory and explanatory MMCSs use triangulation in the composition phase, whereas descriptive MMCSs do not. Moreover, only a fraction of all MMCSs let key informants review a draft of the case study report (8 out of 50, 16%).

5 Discussion

5.1 mmcs from a “research in practice" perspective, 5.1.1 delineating mmcs from other research approaches.

In this section, we delineate MMCSs from related research approaches. In the subsequent sections, we outline research situations for which MMCSs can be used and the benefits MMCSs provide.

Closely related research approaches from which we delineate MMCSs are multiple case studies , interviews, and vignettes . As shown in Fig.  2 , MMCSs differ from multiple case studies in that they focus on breadth by using a high number of cases with limited depth per case. In the most extreme situation, an MMCS only has one primary source of evidence per case. Moreover, MMCSs can also consider a greater variety of cases. In contrast, multiple case studies have a high depth per case and multiple sources of evidence per case to allow for a source triangulation (Benbasat et al. 1987 ; Yin 2018 ). Moreover, multiple case studies mainly focus on how and why research questions (Yin 2018 ), whereas MMCSs can additionally answer what, whether, and which research questions. The rationale why MMCSs are used for more types of research questions is their breadth, allowing them to also answer rather explorative research questions.

Distinguishing MMCSs from interviews is more difficult . Yet, we see two differences. First, interview studies do not have a clear unit of analysis. Interview studies may choose interviewees based on expertise (expert interviews), whereas case study researchers select informants based on the ability to inform about the case (key informants) (Yin 2018 ). Most of the 50 analysed MMCS (88%) specify their unit of analysis. Second, MMCSs can use multiple data collection methods (e.g., observations, interviews, documents), while interviews only use one (the interview) (Lamnek and Krell 2010 ). An example showing these delineation difficulties between MMCSs and interviews is the publication of Demlehner and Laumer ( 2020 ). The authors claim to take “a multiple case study approach including 39 expert interviews” (Demlehner and Laumer 2020 , p. 1). However, our criteria classify this as an interview study. Demlehner and Laumer ( 2020 ) contend that the interviewees were chosen using a “purposeful sampling strategy” (p. 5). However, case study research selects cases based on replication logic, not sampling (Yin 2018 ). Moreover, the results are not presented on a per-case basis (as usual for case studies); instead, the findings are presented on an aggregated level, similar to expert interviews. Therefore, we would not classify this publication as an MMCS but find that it is a very good example to discuss this delineation.

MMCSs differ from vignettes, which are used for (1) data collection , (2) data analysis , and (3) research communication (Klotz et al. 2022 ; Urquhart 2001 ). Researchers use vignettes for data collection as stimuli to which participants react (Klotz et al. 2022 ), i.e., a carefully constructed description of a person, object, or situation (Atzmüller and Steiner 2010 ; Hughes and Huby 2002 ). We can delineate MMCS from vignettes for data collection based on this definition. First, MMCSs are not used as a stimulus to which participants can react, as in MMCSs, data is collected without the stimulus requirement. Furthermore, vignettes for data collection are carefully constructed, which contradicts the characteristics of MMCS, that are all based on collected empirical data and not constructed descriptions.

A data analysis vignette is used as a retrospective tool (Klotz et al. 2022 ) and is very short, which makes it difficult to analyse deeper relationships between constructs. MMCSs differ from vignettes for data analysis in two ways. First, MMCSs are a complete research methodology with four steps, whereas vignettes for data analysis cover only one step (the data analysis) (e.g., Zamani and Pouloudi 2020 ). Second, vignettes are too short to conduct a thorough analysis of relationships, whereas MMCSs foster a more comprehensive analysis, allowing for a deeper analysis of relationships.

Finally, a vignette used for research communication “(1) is bounded to a short time span, a location, a special situation, or one or a few key actors, (2) provides vivid, authentic, and evocative accounts of the events with a narrative flow, (3) is rather short, and (4) is rooted in empirical data, sometimes inspired by data or constructed.” (Klotz et al. 2022 , p. 347). Based on the four elements for the vignettes’ definition, we can delineate MMCS from vignettes used for research communication. First, MMCSs are not necessarily bounded to a short time span, location, special situation, or key actors; instead, with MMCSs, a clearly defined case bounded in its context is researched. Second, the focus of MMCSs is not on the narrative flow; instead, the focus is on describing (c.f., McBride ( 2009 )), exploring (c.f., Baker and Niederman ( 2014 )), or explaining (c.f., van de Weerd et al. ( 2016 )) a phenomenon. Third, while MMCSs do not have the depth of multiple case studies, they are much more comprehensive than vignettes (e.g., the majority of analysed publications (42 of 50, 84%) specify an a priori theoretical framework). Fourth, every MMCS must be based on empirical data, i.e., all of our 50 MMCSs collect data for their study and base their results on this data. This is a key difference from vignettes, which can be completely fictitious (Klotz et al. 2022 ).

5.1.2 MMCS research situations

The decision to use an MMCS as a research method depends on the research context. MMCSs can be used in the early stages of research (descriptive and exploratory MMCS) and to corroborate findings (exploratory and explanatory MMCS). Academic literature has yet to agree on a uniform categorisation of research questions. For instance, Marshall and Rossman ( 2016 ) distinguish between descriptive, exploratory, explanatory, and emancipatory research questions. In contrast, Yin ( 2018 ) distinguishes between who , what , where , how , and why questions, where he argues that the latter two are especially suitable for explanatory case study research. MMCSs can answer more types of research questions than Yin ( 2018 ) proposed. The reason for this is rooted in the higher breadth of MMCSs, which allows MMCSs to also answer rather exploratory what , whether , or which questions, besides the how and why questions that are suggested by Yin ( 2018 ).

For descriptive MMCSs , the main goal of the how and what questions is to describe the phenomenon. However, in our sample of analysed MMCSs, the analysis stops after the description of the phenomenon. The main goal of the five types of exploratory MMCS research questions is to investigate little-known aspects of a particular phenomenon. The how and why questions analyse operational links between different constructs (e.g., “How do different types of IS assets account for synergies between business units to create business value?” (Mandrella et al. 2016 , p. 2)). Exploratory what questions can be answered by case study research and other research methods (e.g., surveys or archival analysis) (Yin 2018 ). Nevertheless, all whether and which MMCS research questions can also be re-formulated as exploratory what questions. The reason why many MMCSs answer what , whether , or which research questions lies in the breadth (i.e., higher number and variety of cases) of MMCS, that allow them to answer these rather exploratory research questions to a satisfactory level. Finally, the research questions of the explanatory MMCSs aim to analyse operational links (i.e., how or why something is happening). This is also in line with the findings of Yin ( 2018 ) for multiple case study research. However, for MMCSs, this view must be extended, as explanatory MMCSs are also able to answer what questions. We explain this with the higher breadth of MMCS.

To discuss an MMCS’s contribution to theory, we use the idea of the theory continuum proposed by Ridder ( 2017 ) (cf. Section  2.1 ). Despite being used in the early phase of research (descriptive and exploratory), we do not recommend using MMCSs to build theory . We argue that for theory building, data with “as much depth as […] feasible” (Eisenhardt 1989 , p. 539) is required on a per-case basis. However, a key characteristic of MMCSs is the limited depth per case, which conflicts with the in-depth requirements of theory building. Moreover, a criterion for theory building is that there is no theory available which explains the phenomenon (Ridder 2017 ). Nevertheless, in our analysed MMCSs, 84% (42 out of 50) have an a priori theoretical framework. Furthermore, for theory building, the recommendation is to use between four to ten cases; with more, “it quickly becomes difficult to cope with the complexity and volume of the data” (Eisenhardt 1989 , p. 545). However, a characteristic of MMCSs is to have a relatively high number of cases, i.e., the analysed MMCSs often have more than 20 cases, which is significantly above the recommendation for theory building.

The next phase in the theory continuum is theory development , where a tentative theory is extended or refined (Ridder 2017 ). MMCSs should and are used for theory development, i.e., 84% (42 out of 50) of analysed MMCS publications have an a priori theoretical framework extended and refined using the MMCS. An MMCS example for theory development is the research of Karunagaran et al. ( 2016 ), who use a combination of the diffusion of innovation theory and technology organisation environment framework as tentative theories to research the adoption of cloud computing. As Ridder ( 2017 ) outlined, for theory development, literal replication and pattern matching should be used. Both methodological steps are used by Karunagaran et al. ( 2016 ) to identify the mechanisms of cloud adoption more precisely.

The next step in the theory continuum is theory testing , where existing theory is challenged by finding anomalies that existing theory cannot explain (Ridder 2017 ). The boundaries between theory development and testing are often blurred (Ridder 2017 ). In theory testing, the phenomenon is understood, and the research strategy focuses on testing if the theory also holds under different circumstances, i.e., hypotheses can be formed and tested based on existing theory (Ridder 2017 ). In multiple case study research, theory testing uses theoretical replication with pattern matching or addressing rival explanations (Ridder 2017 ). In our MMCS publications, no publication addresses rival explanations, and only a few apply theoretical replication and pattern matching–yet not for theory testing. A few publications claim to test propositions derived from an a priori theoretical framework (e.g., Schäfferling et al. 2011 ; Spiegel and Lazic 2010 ; Wagner and Ettrich-Schmitt 2009 ). However, these publications either do not state their replication logic (e.g., Spiegel and Lazic 2010 ; Wagner and Ettrich-Schmitt 2009 ) or use a literal replication (e.g., Schäfferling et al. 2011 ), both of which weaken the value of their theory testing.

5.1.3 MMCS research benefits

MMCSs are beneficial in multiple research situations and can be an avenue to address the frequent criticism of multiple case study research of being time-consuming and costly (Voss et al. 2002 ; Yin 2018 ).

Firstly, MMCSs can be used for time-critical topics where it is beneficial to publish results quicker and discuss them instead of conducting in-depth multiple case studies (e.g., COVID-19 (e.g., dos Santos Tavares et al. 2021 ) or emergent technology adoption (e.g., Bremser 2017 )). Especially with COVID-19, research publishing saw a significantly higher speed due to special issues of journals and faster review processes. Further, due to the fast technological advancements, there is a higher risk that the results are obsolete and of less practical use when researched with time-consuming multiple in-depth case studies.

Secondly, MMCSs can be used in research situations when it is challenging to gather in-depth data from multiple sources of evidence for each case due to the limited availability of sources of evidence or limited accessibility of sources of evidence. When researching novel phenomena (e.g., the adoption of new technologies in organisations), managers and decision-makers are usually interviewed as sources of evidence. However, in most organisations, only one (or very few) decision-makers have the ability to inform and should be interviewed, limiting the potential sources of evidence per case. These decision-makers often have limited availability for multiple in-depth interviews. Furthermore, the sources of evidence are often difficult to access, as professional organisations have regulations that prevent sharing documents with researchers.

Thirdly, MMCSs can be beneficial when the research framework is complex and requires many cases for validation (e.g., Baker and Niederman ( 2014 ) validate their rather complex a priori framework with 22 cases) or when previous research has led to contradictory results . Therefore, in both situations, a higher breadth of cases is required to also research combinatorial effects (e.g., van de Weerd et al. 2016 ). However, conducting an in-depth multiple case study would take time and effort. Therefore, MMCSs can be a mindful way to collect many cases, but in the same vein, being time and cost-efficient.

5.2 MMCS research rigour

Table 8 outlines two types of methodological steps for MMCSs. The first are methodological steps, where MMCSs should follow multiple case study methodological guidance (e.g., clarify the unit of analysis ), while the second is unique to MMCSs due to its characteristics. This section focuses on the latter, exploring MMCS characteristics, problems, validity threats, and proposed solutions.

The characteristics of MMCSs of having only one primary source of evidence per case prevents MMCSs from using source triangulation, which is often used in multiple case study research (Stake 2013 ; Voss et al. 2002 ; Yin 2018 ). By only having one source of evidence, researchers can fail to develop a sufficient set of operational measures and instead rely on subjective judgements, which threatens construct validity (Yin 2018 ). The threats to construct validity must be addressed throughout the MMCS research process. To do so, we propose to use easily accessible supplementary data or other triangulation approaches to increase construct validity in a MMCS. For the other triangulation approaches, we see that the majority of publications use supplementary data (e.g., publicly available documents) as further sources of evidence, multiple investigators, multiple methods (e.g., quantitative and qualitative), multiple theories, or combinations of these (cf. Tables 5 , 6 and 7 ). Having one or, in the best case, all of them reduces the risk of reporting spurious relationships and subjective judgements of the researchers, as a phenomenon is analysed from multiple perspectives. Besides the above-mentioned types of triangulation, we propose to apply a new type of triangulation, which is specific to MMCSs and triangulates findings across similar cases combined to groups instead of multiple sources per case. We propose that all reported findings have to be found in more than one case in a group of cases. This is also in line with previous methodological guidelines, which suggest that findings should only be reported if they have at least three confirmations (Stake 2013 ). To triangulate across multiple cases in one group, researchers have to identify multiple similar cases by applying a literal case replication logic to reinforce similar results. One should also apply a theoretical replication to compare different groups of literally replicated cases (i.e., searching for contrary results). Therefore, researchers have to justify their case replication logic . However, in our sample of MMCS, the majority (32 of 50, 64%) does not justify their replication logic, whereas the remaining publications use either literal replication (8 of 50, 16%), theoretical replication (6 of 50, 12%), or a combination (4 of 50, 8%). We encourage researchers to use a combination of literal and theoretical replication because it allows triangulation across different groups of cases. An exemplary MMCS that uses this approach is the publication of van de Weerd et al. ( 2016 ), who use theoretical replication to find cases with different outcomes (e.g., adoption and non-adoption) and use literal replication to find cases with similar characteristics and form groups of them.

Two further methodological steps, which are not exclusive to MMCS but recommended for increasing the construct validity, are creating a chain of evidence and letting key informants review a draft of the case study report . Only 36% (18 out of 50) of the analysed MMCS publications establish a chain of evidence. One reason for this lower usage may be that the majority (35 out of 50, 70%) of the publications analysed are conference proceedings. While we understand that these publications face space limitations, we note that no publication offers a supplementary appendix with in-depth insights. However, we encourage researchers to create a full chain of evidence with as much transparency as possible. Therefore, online directories for supplementary appendices could be a valuable addition. As opposed to a few years ago, these repositories today are widely available and using them for such purposes could become a good research practice for qualitative research. Interestingly, only 16% (8 of 50) analysed MMCS publications let key informants review the draft of the case study report . As MMCSs only have one source of evidence per case, misinterpretations and subjective judgement by the researcher have a significantly higher impact on the results compared to multiple case study research. Therefore, MMCS researchers should let key informants review the case study report before publishing.

MMCSs only have few (one) sources of evidence per case, so the risk of focusing on spurious relationships is higher, threatening internal validity (Dubé and Paré 2003 ). This threat to internal validity must be addressed in the data analysis phase. In the context of MMCSs, researchers may aggregate fewer data points to obtain a within-case overview. Therefore, having a clear perspective of the existing data points and rigorously applying the within-case analysis methodological steps (e.g., pattern matching) is even more critical. However, due to the limited depth of data at MMCSs, the within-case analysis must be combined with an analysis across groups of cases (to allow triangulation via multiple groups of cases). For MMCSs, we propose not doing the cross-case analysis on a per-case basis. Instead, we propose to build groups of similar cases across which researchers could conduct an analysis across groups of cases. This solidifies internal validity in case study research (Eisenhardt 1989 ) by viewing and synthesising insights from multiple perspectives (Paré 2004 ; Yin 2018 ).

Another risk of MMCSs is the relatively high number of cases (i.e., we found up to 27 for exploratory MMCSs) that is higher than Eisenhardt’s ( 1989 ) recommendation of maximal ten cases in multiple case study research. With more than ten in-depth cases, researchers struggled to manage the complexity and data volume, resulting in models with low generalisability and reduced external validity (Eisenhardt 1989 ). We propose to use two methodological steps to address the threat to external validity.

First, like Yin’s ( 2018 ) recommendation to use theory for single case studies, we suggest an a priori theoretical framework for MMCSs. 84% (42 out of 50) of the analysed MMCS publications use such a framework. An a priori theoretical framework has two advantages: it simplifies research by pre-defining constructs and relationships, and it enables analytical techniques like pattern matching. Second, instead of doing the within and then cross-case analysis on a per-case basis, for MMCSs, we propose first doing the within-case analysis and then forming groups of similar cases. Then, the cross-case analysis is performed on the formed groups of cases. To form case groups, replication logic (literal and theoretical) must be chosen carefully. Cross-group analysis (with at least two cases per group) can increase the generalisability of results.

To increase MMCS reliability, a case study database and protocol should be created, similar to multiple case studies. To ensure higher reliability, researchers should document MMCS design decisions in more detail. As outlined in the results section, the documentation on why design decisions were taken is often relatively short and should be more detailed. This call for better documentation is not exclusive to MMCSs, as Benbasat et al. ( 1987 ) and Dubé and Paré ( 2003 ) also criticised this for multiple case study research.To ensure rigour in MMCS, we suggest following the steps for multiple case study research. However, MMCSs have unique characteristics, such as an inability to source triangulate on a per-case level, a higher risk of marginal cases, and difficulty in managing a high number of cases. Therefore, for some methodological steps (cf. Table 8 ), we propose MMCS-specific methodological options. First, MMCS should include supplementary data per case (to increase construct validity). Second, instead of doing a cross-case analysis, we propose to form groups of similar cases and focus on the cross-group analysis (i.e., in each group, there must be at least two cases). Third, researchers should justify their case replication logic , i.e., a combination of theoretical replication (to form different groups) and literal replication (to find the same cases within groups) should be conducted to allow for this cross-group analysis.

6 Conclusion

Our publication contributes to case study research in the IS discipline and beyond by making four methodological contributions. First, we provide a conceptual definition of MMCSs and distinguish them from other research approaches. Second, we provide a contemporary collection of exemplary MMCS publications and their methodological choices. Third, we outline methodological guidelines for rigorous MMCS research and provide examples of good practice. Fourth, we identify research situations for which MMCSs can be used as a pragmatic and rigorous approach.

Our findings have three implications for research practice: First, we found that MMCSs can be descriptive, exploratory, or explanatory and can be considered as a type of multiple case study. Our set of IS MMCS publications shows that this pragmatic approach is advantageous in three situations. First, for time-sensitive topics, where rapid discussion of results, especially in the early stages of research, is beneficial. Second, when it is difficult to collect comprehensive data from multiple sources for each case, either because of limited availability or limited accessibility to the data source. Third, in situations where the research setting is complex, many cases are needed to validate effects (e.g., combinatorial effects) or previous research has produced conflicting results. It is important, however, that the pragmatism of the MMCS should not be misunderstood as a lack of methodological rigour.

Second, we have provided guidelines that researchers can follow to conduct MMCSs rigorously. As we observe an increasing number of MMCSs being published, we encourage their authors to clarify their methodological approach by referring to our analytical MMCS framework. Our analytical framework helps researchers to justify their approach and to distinguish it from approaches that lack methodological rigour.

Third, throughout our collection of MMCS publications, we contacted several authors to clarify their case study research methodology. In many cases, these publications lacked critical details that would be important to classify them as MMCS or marginal cases. Many researchers responded that some details were not mentioned due to space limitations. While we understand these constraints, we suggest that researchers still present these details, for example, by considering online appendices in research repositories.

Our paper has five limitations that could be addressed by future research. First, we focus exclusively on methodological guidelines for positivist multiple case study research. Therefore, we have not explicitly covered methodological approaches from other research paradigms.

Second, we aggregated methodological guidance on multiple case study research from the most relevant publications by citation count only. As a result, we did not capture evidence from publications with far fewer citations or that are relevant in specific niches. However, our design choice is still justified as the aim was to identify established and widely accepted methodological strategies to ensure rigour in case study research.

Third, the literature reviews were keyword-based. Therefore, concepts that fall within our understanding of MMCS but do not include the keywords used for the literature search could not be identified. However, due to the different search terms and versatile search approaches, our search should have captured the most relevant contributions.

Fourth, we selected publications from highly ranked IS MMCS publications and proceedings of leading IS conferences to analyse how rigour is ensured in MMCSs in the IS discipline. We therefore excluded all other research outlets. As with the limitations arising from the keyword-based search, we may have omitted IS MMCS publications that refer to short or mini case studies. However, the limitation of our search is justified as it helps us to ensure that all selected publications have undergone a substantial peer review process and qualify as a reference base in IS.

Fifth, we coded our variables based on the characteristics explicitly stated in the manuscript (i.e., if authors position their MMCS as exploratory, we coded it as exploratory). However, for some variables, researchers do not have a consistent understanding (e.g., the discussion of what constitutes exploratory research by cf., Sarker et al. ( 2018 )). Therefore, we took the risk that MMCS may have different understandings of the coded variables.

For the future, our manuscript on positivist MMCSs provides researchers with guidance for an emerging type of case study research. Based on our study, we can identify promising areas for future research. By limiting ourselves to the most established strategies for ensuring rigour, we also invite authors to enrich our methodological guidelines with other, less commonly used steps. In addition, future research could compare the use of MMCSs in IS with other disciplines in order to solidify our findings.

Data availability

Provided at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24916458

The information can be found in the online Appendix: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24916458 .

litbaskets.io is a web interface that allows searching for literature across the top 847 IS journals. It offers ranging from 2XS (Basket of Eight) to 3XL (847) essential IS journals and a full list of 29 journals which are the basis for this study can be found in Appendix C ( https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24916458 ).

Atzmüller C, Steiner PM (2010) Experimental vignette studies in survey research. Method Eur J Res Methods Behav Soc Sci. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000014

Article   Google Scholar  

Baker EW, Niederman F (2014) Integrating the IS functions after mergers and acquisitions: analyzing business-IT alignment. J Strateg Inf Syst 23(2):112–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2013.08.002

Benbasat I, Goldstein DK, Mead M (1987) The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Q 11(3):369–386. https://doi.org/10.2307/248684

Boell S, Wang B (2019) www.litbaskets.io , an IT artifact supporting exploratory literature searches for information systems research. In: Proceedings ACIS 2019

Bremser CP, Gunther Rothlauf F (2017) Strategies and influencing factors for big data exploration. In: proceedings AMCIS 2017

Vom Brocke J, Simons A, Niehaves B, Riemer K, Plattfaut R, Cleven A (2009) Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. In: Proceedings ECIS 2009

Creswell JW, Poth CN (2016) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches, 4th edn. Sage Publications, California

Google Scholar  

Demlehner Q, Laumer S (2020) Shall we use it or not? Explaining the adoption of artificial intelligence for car manufacturing purposes. In: Proceedings ECIS 2020

Dubé L, Paré G (2003) Rigor in information systems positivist case research: current practices, trends, and recommendations. MIS Q 27(4):597–636. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036550

Dubois A, Gadde L-E (2002) Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research. J Bus Res 55(7):553–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00195-8

Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev 14(4):532–550. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557

Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME (2007) Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad Manag J 50(1):25–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888

Gibbert M, Ruigrok W, Wicki B (2008) What passes as a rigorous case study? Strateg Manag J 29(13):1465–1474. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.722

Gogan JL, McLaughlin MD, Thomas D (2014) Critical incident technique in the basket. In: Proceedings ICIS 2014

Hahn C, Röher D, Zarnekow R (2015) A value proposition oriented typology of electronic marketplaces for B2B SaaS applications. In: Proceedings AMCIS 2015

Hanelt A, Hildebrandt B, Polier J (2015) Uncovering the role of IS in business model innovation: a taxonomy-driven approach to structure the field. In: Proceedings ECIS 2015

Hughes R, Huby M (2002) The application of vignettes in social and nursing research. J Adv Nurs 37(4):382–386. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02100.x

Karunagaran S, Mathew S, Lehner F (2016) Differential adoption of cloud technology: a multiple case study of large firms and SMEs. In: Proceedings ICIS 2016

Keutel M, Michalik B, Richter J (2014) Towards mindful case study research in IS: a critical analysis of the past ten years. Eur J Inf Syst 23(3):256–272. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.26

Klein HK, Myers MD (1999) A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Q 23(1):67–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/249410

Klotz S, Kratzer S, Westner M, Strahringer S (2022) Literary sketches in information systems research: conceptualization and guidance for using vignettes as a narrative form. Inf Syst Manag. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2021.1996661

Kunduru SR, Bandi RK (2019) Fluidity of power structures underpinning public discourse on social media: a multi-case study on twitter discourse in India. In: Proceedings AMCIS 2019

Kurnia S, Karnali RJ, Rahim MM (2015) A qualitative study of business-to-business electronic commerce adoption within the indonesian grocery industry: a multi-theory perspective. Inf Manag 52(4):518–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.03.003

Lamnek S, Krell C (2010) Qualitative sozialforschung: mit online-materialien, 6th edn. Beltz Verlangsgruppe, Germany

Lee AS, Hubona GS (2009) A scientific basis for rigor in information systems research. MIS Q 33(2):237–262. https://doi.org/10.2307/20650291

Mandrella M, Zander S, Trang S (2016) How different types of IS assets account for synergy-enabled value in multi-unit firms: mapping of critical success factors and key performance indicators. In: Proceedings AMCIS 2016

Marshall C, Rossman GB (2016) Designing qualitative research, 6th edn. SAGE Publications, Inc., California

McBride N (2009) Exploring service issues within the IT organisation: four mini-case studies. Int J Inf Manag 29(3):237–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2008.11.010

Meredith J (1998) Building operations management theory through case and field research. J Oper Manag 16:441–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00023-0

Nili A, Tate M, Barros A, Johnstone D (2020) An approach for selecting and using a method of inter-coder reliability in information management research. Int J Inf Manage 54:102154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102154

Orlikowski WJ, Baroudi JJ (1991) Studying information technology in organizations: research approaches and assumptions. Inf Syst Res 2(1):1–28

Palvia P, Daneshvar Kakhki M, Ghoshal T, Uppala V, Wang W (2015) Methodological and topic trends in information systems research: a meta-analysis of IS journals. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 37(1):30. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03730

Pan SL, Tan B (2011) Demystifying case research: a structured–pragmatic–situational (SPS) approach to conducting case studies. Inf Organ 21(3):161–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2011.07.001

Paré G (2004) Investigating information systems with positivist case research. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 13(1):18. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01318

Piekkari R, Welch C, Paavilainen E (2009) The case study as disciplinary convention: evidence from international business journals. Organ Res Methods 12(3):567–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810831990

Recker J (2012) Scientific research in information systems: a beginner’s guide. Springer, Berlin

Ridder H-G (2017) The theory contribution of case study research. Bus Res 10(2):281–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-017-0045-z

dos Santos Tavares AP, Fornazin M, Joia LA (2021) The good, the bad, and the ugly: digital transformation and the Covid-19 pandemic. In: Proceedings AMCIS 2021

Sarker S, Xiao X, Beaulieu T, Lee AS (2018) Learning from first-generation qualitative approaches in the IS discipline: an evolutionary view and some implications for authors and evaluators (PART 1/2). J Assoc Inf Syst 19(8):752–774. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00508

Schäfferling A, Wagner H-T, Schulz M, Dum T (2011) The effect of knowledge management systems on absorptive capacity: findings from international law firms. In: Proceedings PACIS 2011

Sørensen C, Landau JS (2015) Academic agility in digital innovation research: the case of mobile ICT publications within information systems 2000–2014. J Strateg Inf Syst 24(3):158–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2015.07.001

Spiegel F, Lazic M (2010) Incentive and control mechanisms for mitigating relational risk in IT outsourcing relationships. In: Proceedings AMCIS 2010

Stake RE (2013) Multiple case study analysis. The Guilford Press

Urquhart C (2001) Bridging information requirements and information needs assessment: Do scenarios and vignettes provide a link? Inf Res 6(2):6–2

van de Weerd I, Mangula IS, Brinkkemper S (2016) Adoption of software as a service in indonesia: examining the influence of organizational factors. Inf Manag 53(7):915–928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.05.008

Vom Brocke J, Simons A, Riemer K, Niehaves B, Plattfaut R, Cleven A (2015) Standing on the shoulders of giants: challenges and recommendations of literature search in information systems research. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 37(1):9. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03709

Voss C, Tsikriktsis N, Frohlich M (2002) Case research in operations management. Int J Oper Prod Manag 22(2):195–219

Wagner H-T, Ettrich-Schmitt K (2009) Integrating value-adding mobile services into an emergency management system for tourist destinations. In: Proceedings ECIS 2009

Welch C, Piekkari R, Plakoyiannaki E. et al (2011) Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. J Int Bus Stud 42, 740–762. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.55

Weill P, Olson MH (1989) Managing investment in information technology: mini case examples and implications. MIS Q 13(1):3–17. https://doi.org/10.2307/248694

Yin RK (2018) Case study research and applications: design and methods, 5th edn. Sage Publications, California

Zamani E, Pouloudi N (2020) Generative mechanisms of workarounds, discontinuance and reframing: a study of negative disconfirmation with consumerised IT. Inf Syst J 31(3):284–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12315

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. No funding was received for conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

Sebastian Käss, Christoph Brosig & Susanne Strahringer

OTH Regensburg, Seybothstr 2, 93053, Regensburg, Germany

Markus Westner

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Literature search and analyses were performed by the first two authors, and reviewed by the other two. All authors contributed to the interpretation and the discussion of the results. The first draft of the manuscript was written by the first two authors and all authors commented on the previous versions of the manuscript and critically revised the work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susanne Strahringer .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this study.

Ethical approval

Not Applicable, no human participants.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Käss, S., Brosig, C., Westner, M. et al. Short and sweet: multiple mini case studies as a form of rigorous case study research. Inf Syst E-Bus Manage (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-024-00674-2

Download citation

Received : 24 January 2024

Accepted : 23 February 2024

Published : 15 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-024-00674-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Case study research
• Multiple mini case study
• Short case study
• Methodological guidance
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

US Justice Department to appeal ruling dismissing Trump documents case

• Medium Text

'BREATHTAKINGLY MISGUIDED'

Sign up here.

Reporting by Andrew Goudsward and Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Scott Malone, Will Dunham, Rosalba O'Brien and Deepa Babington

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Thomson Reuters

Sarah N. Lynch is the lead reporter for Reuters covering the U.S. Justice Department out of Washington, D.C. During her time on the beat, she has covered everything from the Mueller report and the use of federal agents to quell protesters in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, to the rampant spread of COVID-19 in prisons and the department's prosecutions following the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Read Next / Editor's Picks

Industry Insight

Luc Cohen, Susan Heavey

David Thomas

Mike Scarcella, David Thomas

Karen Sloan

• Advanced Search

Resource-constrained project scheduling with multiple states: : Bi-objective optimization model and case study of aircraft maintenance

New citation alert added.

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations, view options, recommendations, a heuristic approach for minimizing weighted tardiness and overtime costs in single resource scheduling.

Many firms face practical scheduling challenges in balancing the costs of overtime against the costs of tardiness, where tardiness costs vary by job or project. This paper addresses this challenge by considering scheduling jobs for processing during a ...

Multi-objective metaheuristic algorithms for the resource-constrained project scheduling problem with precedence relations

This study addresses the resource-constrained project scheduling problem with precedence relations, and aims at minimizing two criteria: the makespan and the total weighted start time of the activities. To solve the problem, five multi-objective ...

Setup times and fast tracking in resource-constrained project scheduling

Resource-constrained project scheduling with activity pre-emption assumes that activities are allowed to be interrupted and restarted later in the schedule at no extra cost. In the current paper, we extend this pre-emptive scheduling problem with setup ...

Information

Published in.

Pergamon Press, Inc.

United States

Publication History

Author tags.

• Project scheduling
• Aircraft maintenance
• Bi-objective optimization
• Multiple states
• Project management
• Research-article

Contributors

Other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

• 0 Total Citations
• 0 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 0
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 0

View options

Login options.

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Share this publication link.

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

• Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
• Download citation
• Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

Advertisement

Judge Dismisses Classified Documents Case Against Trump

Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that the entire case should be thrown out because the appointment of the special counsel who brought the case, Jack Smith, had violated the Constitution. Mr. Smith’s office said he would appeal.

• Share full article

By Alan Feuer

Alan Feuer covers the federal cases against former President Donald J. Trump.

• July 15, 2024

The federal judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump’s classified documents case threw out all of the charges against him on Monday, ruling that Jack Smith, the special counsel who filed the indictment, had been given his job in violation of the Constitution.

In a stunning decision delivered on the first day of the Republican National Convention, the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, found that Mr. Smith’s appointment as special counsel was improper because it was not based on a specific federal statute and because he had not been named to the post by the president or confirmed by the Senate.

She also found that Mr. Smith had been improperly funded by the Treasury Department.

The ruling by Judge Cannon, who was put on the bench by Mr. Trump in his final year in office, flew in the face of previous court decisions reaching back to the Watergate era that upheld the legality of the ways in which independent prosecutors have been put into their posts.

It handed Mr. Trump a major legal victory two days after he was wounded in a shooting at a campaign rally and at the very onset of the political pageant where he is set to formally become his party’s presidential nominee.

The classified documents case, which is being heard in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla., once appeared to be the most straightforward of the four criminal prosecutions that Mr. Trump has faced. He was charged last year with illegally holding on to classified national security materials after leaving office and then obstructing government efforts to retrieve them along with two co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos DeOliveira.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .