American Political Science Review
Vol. 98, No. 2
What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?
his paper aims to clarify the meaning, and explain the utility, of the case study method, a method often practiced but little understood. A “case study,” I argue, is best deﬁned as an intensive study of a single unit with an aim to generalize across a larger set of units. Case studies rely on the same sort of covariational evidence utilized in non-case study research. Thus, the case study method is correctly understood as a particular way of deﬁning cases, not a way of analyzing cases or a way of modeling causal relations. I show that this understanding of the subject illuminates some of the persistent ambiguities of case study work, ambiguities that are, to some extent, intrinsic to the enterprise. The travails of the case study within the discipline of political science are also rooted in an insufﬁcient appreciation of the methodological tradeoffs that this method calls forth. This paper presents the familiar contrast between case study and non-case study work as a series of characteristic strengths and weaknesses—afﬁnities— rather than as antagonistic approaches to the empirical world. In the end, the perceived hostility between case study and non-case study research is largely unjustiﬁed and, perhaps, deserves to be regarded as a misconception. Indeed, the strongest conclusion to arise from this methodological examination concerns the complementarity of single-unit and cross-unit research designs. tion of work generated by the discipline, the case study method is held in low regard or is simply ignored. Even among its defenders there is confusion over the virtues and vices of this ambiguous research design. Practitioners continue to ply their trade but have difﬁculty articulating what it is that they are doing, methodologically speaking. The case study survives in a curious methodological limbo. How can we understand the profound disjuncture that exists between the case study’s acknowledged contributions to political science and its maligned status within the discipline? If case studies are methodologically ﬂawed, why do they persist? The paper is divided into two parts. The ﬁrst part focuses on matters of deﬁnition. I argue that for methodological purposes a case study is best deﬁned as an in-depth study of a single unit (a relatively bounded phenomenon) where the scholar’s aim is to elucidate features of a larger class of similar phenomena. It is demonstrated that case studies rely on the same sort of covariational evidence utilized in non-case study research. Thus, the case study method is correctly understood as a particular way of deﬁning cases, not a way of analyzing cases or a way of modeling causal relations. I show, ﬁnally, that this understanding of the subject illuminates some of the persistent ambiguities of case study work, ambiguities that are, to some extent, intrinsic to the enterprise. In the second part of the paper I proceed to examine the contrast between case study and non-case study work. The central argument here is that the differences between these two genres are best understood as characteristic strengths and weaknesses—afﬁnities—rather than antagonistic approaches to the empirical world. Tradeoffs, rather than dichotomies, characterize the ongoing case study/non-case study debate.
he case study occupies a vexed position in the discipline of political science. On the one hand, methodologists generally view the case study method with extreme circumspection (Achen and Snidal 1989; King, Keohane, and Verba 1994; Lieberson  1992, 1994; Njolstad 1990). A work that focuses its attention on a single example of a broader phenomenon is apt to be described as a “mere” case study. At the same time, the discipline continues to produce a vast number of case studies, many of which have entered the pantheon of classic works (Allen 1965; Allison...
References: Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson. 2003. “An African Success Story: Botswana.” In In Search of Prosperity: Analytic Narratives on Economic Growth, ed. Dani Rodrik. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 80–122. Achen, Christopher H., and Duncan Snidal. 1989. “Rational Deterrence Theory and Comparative Case Studies.” World Politics 41 (January): 143–69. Adcock, Robert. 2002. “Determinism and Comparative-Historical Analysis: Clarifying Concepts and Retrieving Past Insights.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston. Alesina, Alberto, Edward Glaeser, and Bruce Sacerdote. 2001. “Why Doesn’t the US Have a European-Style Welfare State?” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2: 187–277. Allen, William Sheridan. 1965. The Nazi Seizure of Power: The Experience of a Single German Town, 1930–1935. New York: Watts. Allison, Graham T. 1971. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little, Brown. Bates, Robert H., Avner Greif, Margaret Levi, Jean-Laurent Rosenthal, and Barry Weingast. 1998. Analytic Narratives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Brady, Henry E., and David Collier, eds. 2004. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleﬁeld. Cameron, David. 1978. “The Expansion of the Public Economy: A Comparative Analysis.” American Political Science Review 72 (December): 1243–61. Campbell, Donald T.  1988. “‘Degrees of Freedom’ and the Case Study.” In Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science, ed. E. Samuel Overman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Campbell, Donald T., and Julian Stanley. 1963. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Boston: Houghton Mifﬂin. Collier, David, and James Mahoney. 1996. “Insights and Pitfalls: Selection Bias in Qualitative Research.” World Politics 49 (October): 56–91. Collier, Ruth Berins, and David Collier.  2002. Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Coppedge, Michael J. 2002. “Nested Inference: How to Combine the Beneﬁts of Large-Sample Comparisons and Case Studies.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston. Dahl, Robert A. 1961. Who Governs?: Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Davidson, P. O., and C. G. Costello, eds. 1969. N = 1: Experimental Studies of Single Cases. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Dion, Douglas. 1998. “Evidence and Inference in the Comparative Case Study.” Comparative Politics 30 (January): 127–45. Eaton, Kent. 2002. Politicians and Economic Reform in New Democracies. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Granted, a good deal of cross-unit work involves the reanalysis of existing datasets; in this situation the barriers to entry are not so high.
What Is a Case Study?
Eckstein, Harry.  1992. “Case Studies and Theory in Political Science.” In Regarding Politics: Essays on Political Theory, Stability, and Change. Berkeley: University of California Press. Elman, Miriam, ed. 1997. Paths to Peace: Is Democracy the Answer? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Feagin, Joe R., Anthony M. Orum, and Gideon Sjoberg. 1991. A Case for the Case Study. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Fenno, Richard F., Jr. 1978. Home Style: House Members in their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown. George, Alexander. 1979. “Case Studies and Theory Development: The Method of Structured, Focused Comparison.” In Diplomacy: New Approaches in History, Theory, and Policy, ed. Paul Gordon Lauren. New York: Free Press. George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. 2004. Case Studies and Theory Development, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gerber, Alan S., and Donald P. Green. 2000. “The Effects of Canvassing, Direct Mail, and Telephone Contact on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review 94: 653–63. Gerring, John. 2001. Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gerring, John. Forthcoming. “Causation: A Uniﬁed Framework for the Social Sciences.” Journal of Theoretical Politics. Goertz, Gary. 2003. “The Substantive Importance of Necessary Condition Hypotheses.” In Necessary Conditions: Theory, Methodology and Applications, ed. Gary Goertz and Harvey Starr. New York: Rowman and Littleﬁeld. Goertz, Gary, and Harvey Starr, eds. 2003. Necessary Conditions: Theory, Methodology and Applications. New York: Rowman and Littleﬁeld. Hall, Peter A. 2003. “Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Politics.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, ed. James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hartz, Louis. 1955. The Liberal Tradition in America. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Hedstrom, Peter, and Richard Swedberg, eds. 1998. Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Horowitz, Donald L. 1985. Ethnic Groups in Conﬂict. Berkeley: University of California Press. Johnson, Chalmers. 1983. MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925–1975. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Kaufman, Herbert. 1960. The Forest Ranger: A Study in Administrative Behavior. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientiﬁc Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kuhn, Thomas S.  1970. The Structure of Scientiﬁc Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lane, Robert. 1962. Political Ideology: Why the American Common Man Believes What He Does. New York: Free Press. Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet. 1948. The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York, Columbia Univ. Press. Lieberman, Evan S. 2003. “Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Solution to Cross-National Research.” Ms. Princeton University. Lieberson, Stanley.  1992. “Small N’s and Big Conclusions: An Examination of the Reasoning in Comparative Studies Based on a Small Number of Cases.” In What Is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, ed. Charles S. Ragin and Howard S. Becker . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lieberson, Stanley. 1994. “More on the Uneasy Case for Using MillType Methods in Small-N Comparative Studies.” Social Forces 72 (June): 1225–37. Lijphart, Arend. 1968. The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lijphart, Arend. 1975. “The Comparable Cases Strategy in Comparative Research.” Comparative Political Studies 8 (July): 158– 77. Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1963. The First New Nation: The United States in Historical and Comparative Perspective. New York: Basic Books.
Lynd, Robert Staughton, and Helen Merrell Lynd.  1956. Middletown: A Study in American Culture. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Mahoney, James, and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, eds. 2003. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Malinowski, Bronislaw.  1984. Argonauts of the Western Paciﬁc. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. McKeown, Timothy. 1999. “Case Studies and the Statistical World View.” International Organization 53 (Winter): 161–90. Njolstad, Olav. 1990. “Learning From History? Case Studies and Limits to Theory-Building.” In Olav Njolstad, (ed.), Arms Races: Technological and Political Dynamics (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage) 220–46. Popper, Karl. 1969. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Pressman, Jeffrey L., and Aron Wildavsky. 1973. Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Przeworski, Adam, and Henry Teune. 1970. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: John Wiley. Przeworski, Adam, Michael Alvarez, Jose Antonio Cheibub, and Fernando Limongi. 2000. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Material Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California. Ragin, Charles C. 1992. “Cases of ‘What Is a Case?” In What Is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, ed. Charles C. Ragin and Howard S. Becker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ragin, Charles C. 1997. “Turning the Tables: How Case-Oriented Research Challenges Variable-Oriented Research.” Comparative Social Research 16: 27–42. Ragin, Charles C. 2000. Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ragin, Charles C., and Howard S. Becker, eds. 1992. What Is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reilly, Benjamin. 2001. Democracy in Divided Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roberts, Clayton. 1996. The Logic of Historical Explanation. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Rodrik, Dani, ed. 2003. In Search of Prosperity: Analytic Narratives on Economic Growth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and John D. Stephens. 1997. “Comparing Historical Sequences: A Powerful Tool for Causal Analysis.” Comparative Social Research 16: 55–72. Sartori, Giovanni. 1984. “Guidelines for Concept Analysis.” In Social Science Concepts: A Systematic Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 15–48. Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, Rogers M. 1997. Civic Ideals: Conﬂicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Stratmann, Thomas, and Martin Baur. 2002. “Plurality Rule, Proportional Representation, and the German Bundestag: How Incentives to Pork-Barrel Differ Across Electoral Systems.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (July): 506–14. Taylor, Charles. 1970. “The Explanation of Purposive Behavior.” In Explanation in the Behavioral Sciences, ed. Robert Borger and Frank Ciofﬁ. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Temple, Jonathan. 1999. “The New Growth Evidence.” Journal of Economic Literature (March) 37: 1112–56. Thompson, E. P. 1963. The Making of the English Working Class. New York: Vintage Books. Waldner, David. 2002. “Anti Anti-Determinism: Or What Happens When Schrodinger’s Cat and Lorenz’s Butterﬂy Meet Laplace’s Demon in the Study of Political and Economic Development.” Presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston. Whyte, William Foote.  1955. Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Yin, Robert K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document