© RWJF 2008
P.O. Box 2316 College Road East and Route 1
Princeton, NJ 08543
-->Citation: Cohen D, Crabtree B. "Qualitative Research Guidelines Project." July 2006.
Discover the world's research
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.
Published on 5 May 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 30 January 2023.
A case study is a detailed study of a specific subject, such as a person, group, place, event, organisation, or phenomenon. Case studies are commonly used in social, educational, clinical, and business research.
A case study research design usually involves qualitative methods , but quantitative methods are sometimes also used. Case studies are good for describing , comparing, evaluating, and understanding different aspects of a research problem .
When to do a case study, step 1: select a case, step 2: build a theoretical framework, step 3: collect your data, step 4: describe and analyse the case.
A case study is an appropriate research design when you want to gain concrete, contextual, in-depth knowledge about a specific real-world subject. It allows you to explore the key characteristics, meanings, and implications of the case.
Case studies are often a good choice in a thesis or dissertation . They keep your project focused and manageable when you don’t have the time or resources to do large-scale research.
You might use just one complex case study where you explore a single subject in depth, or conduct multiple case studies to compare and illuminate different aspects of your research problem.
Research question | Case study |
---|---|
What are the ecological effects of wolf reintroduction? | Case study of wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park in the US |
How do populist politicians use narratives about history to gain support? | Case studies of Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán and US president Donald Trump |
How can teachers implement active learning strategies in mixed-level classrooms? | Case study of a local school that promotes active learning |
What are the main advantages and disadvantages of wind farms for rural communities? | Case studies of three rural wind farm development projects in different parts of the country |
How are viral marketing strategies changing the relationship between companies and consumers? | Case study of the iPhone X marketing campaign |
How do experiences of work in the gig economy differ by gender, race, and age? | Case studies of Deliveroo and Uber drivers in London |
Once you have developed your problem statement and research questions , you should be ready to choose the specific case that you want to focus on. A good case study should have the potential to:
Unlike quantitative or experimental research, a strong case study does not require a random or representative sample. In fact, case studies often deliberately focus on unusual, neglected, or outlying cases which may shed new light on the research problem.
If you find yourself aiming to simultaneously investigate and solve an issue, consider conducting action research . As its name suggests, action research conducts research and takes action at the same time, and is highly iterative and flexible.
However, you can also choose a more common or representative case to exemplify a particular category, experience, or phenomenon.
While case studies focus more on concrete details than general theories, they should usually have some connection with theory in the field. This way the case study is not just an isolated description, but is integrated into existing knowledge about the topic. It might aim to:
To ensure that your analysis of the case has a solid academic grounding, you should conduct a literature review of sources related to the topic and develop a theoretical framework . This means identifying key concepts and theories to guide your analysis and interpretation.
There are many different research methods you can use to collect data on your subject. Case studies tend to focus on qualitative data using methods such as interviews, observations, and analysis of primary and secondary sources (e.g., newspaper articles, photographs, official records). Sometimes a case study will also collect quantitative data .
The aim is to gain as thorough an understanding as possible of the case and its context.
In writing up the case study, you need to bring together all the relevant aspects to give as complete a picture as possible of the subject.
How you report your findings depends on the type of research you are doing. Some case studies are structured like a standard scientific paper or thesis, with separate sections or chapters for the methods , results , and discussion .
Others are written in a more narrative style, aiming to explore the case from various angles and analyse its meanings and implications (for example, by using textual analysis or discourse analysis ).
In all cases, though, make sure to give contextual details about the case, connect it back to the literature and theory, and discuss how it fits into wider patterns or debates.
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.
McCombes, S. (2023, January 30). Case Study | Definition, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved 5 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/case-studies/
Other students also liked, correlational research | guide, design & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, descriptive research design | definition, methods & examples.
What is qualitative research?
Qualitative research is a process of naturalistic inquiry that seeks an in-depth understanding of social phenomena within their natural setting. It focuses on the "why" rather than the "what" of social phenomena and relies on the direct experiences of human beings as meaning-making agents in their every day lives. Rather than by logical and statistical procedures, qualitative researchers use multiple systems of inquiry for the study of human phenomena including biography, case study, historical analysis, discourse analysis, ethnography, grounded theory, and phenomenology.
University of Utah College of Nursing, (n.d.). What is qualitative research? [Guide] Retrieved from https://nursing.utah.edu/research/qualitative-research/what-is-qualitative-research.php#what
The following video will explain the fundamentals of qualitative research.
University of Texas Arlington Libraries 702 Planetarium Place · Arlington, TX 76019 · 817-272-3000
1939 Accesses
As a footnote to the previous chapter, there is such a beast known as the ethnographic case study. Ethnographic case study has found its way into this chapter rather than into the previous one because of grammatical considerations. Simply put, the “case study” part of the phrase is the noun (with “case” as an adjective defining what kind of study it is), while the “ethnographic” part of the phrase is an adjective defining the type of case study that is being conducted. As such, the case study becomes the methodology, while the ethnography part refers to a method, mode or approach relating to the development of the study.
The experiential account that we get from a case study or qualitative research of a similar vein is just so necessary. How things happen over time and the degree to which they are subject to personality and how they are only gradually perceived as tolerable or intolerable by the communities and the groups that are involved is so important. Robert Stake, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Subscribe and save.
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Institutional subscriptions
Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2017). Rethinking case study research . Routledge.
Google Scholar
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity . Polity Press.
Bhaskar, R., & Danermark, B. (2006). Metatheory, interdisciplinarity and disability research: A critical realist perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 8 (4), 278–297.
Article Google Scholar
Bulmer, M. (1986). The Chicago School of sociology: Institutionalization, diversity, and the rise of sociological research . University of Chicago Press.
Campbell, D. T. (1975). Degrees of freedom and the case study. Comparative Political Studies, 8 (1), 178–191.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research . Houghton Mifflin.
Chua, W. F. (1986). Radical developments in accounting thought. The Accounting Review, 61 (4), 601–632.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design . Sage.
Davey, L. (1991). The application of case study evaluations. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation 2 (9) . Retrieved May 28, 2018, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=2&n=9
Demetriou, H. (2017). The case study. In E. Wilson (Ed.), School-based research: A guide for education students (pp. 124–138). Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research . Sage.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 420–433). Sage.
Hamel, J., Dufour, S., & Fortin, D. (1993). Case study methods . Sage.
Book Google Scholar
Healy, M. E. (1947). Le Play’s contribution to sociology: His method. The American Catholic Sociological Review, 8 (2), 97–110.
Johansson, R. (2003). Case study methodology. [Keynote speech]. In International Conference “Methodologies in Housing Research.” Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, September 2003 (pp. 1–14).
Klonoski, R. (2013). The case for case studies: Deriving theory from evidence. Journal of Business Case Studies, 9 (31), 261–266.
McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research methods for English language teachers . Routledge.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education . Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B. (1979). Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: The problem of analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24 (4), 590–601.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.
Mills, A. J., Durepos, G. & E. Wiebe (Eds.) (2010). What is a case study? Encyclopedia of case study research, Volumes I and II. Sage.
National Film Board of Canada. (2012, April). Here at home: In search of the real cost of homelessness . [Web documentary]. Retrieved February 9, 2020, from http://athome.nfb.ca/#/athome/home
Popper, K. (2002). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge . Routledge.
Ridder, H.-G. (2017). The theory contribution of case study research designs. Business Research, 10 (2), 281–305.
Rolls, G. (2005). Classic case studies in psychology . Hodder Education.
Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case-Selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61 , 294–308.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research . Sage.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Multiple case study analysis . Guilford Press.
Swanborn, P. G. (2010). Case study research: What, why and how? Sage.
Thomas, W. I., & Znaniecki, F. (1996). The Polish peasant in Europe and America: A classic work in immigration history . University of Illinois Press.
Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26 (1), 58–65.
Yin, R. K. (1991). Advancing rigorous methodologies : A Review of “Towards Rigor in Reviews of Multivocal Literatures….”. Review of Educational Research, 61 (3), 299–305.
Yin, R. K. (1999). Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health Services Research, 34 (5) Part II, 1209–1224.
Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of case study research (3rd ed.). Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.
Zaretsky, E. (1996). Introduction. In W. I. Thomas & F. Znaniecki (Eds.), The Polish peasant in Europe and America: A classic work in immigration history (pp. vii–xvii). University of Illinois Press.
Download references
Authors and affiliations.
Faculty of Education, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, NS, Canada
Robert E. White
OISE, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Karyn Cooper
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to Robert E. White .
Christine Benedichte Meyer
Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration
Meyer, C. B. (2001). A Case in Case Study Methodology. Field Methods 13 (4), 329-352.
The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive view of the case study process from the researcher’s perspective, emphasizing methodological considerations. As opposed to other qualitative or quantitative research strategies, such as grounded theory or surveys, there are virtually no specific requirements guiding case research. This is both the strength and the weakness of this approach. It is a strength because it allows tailoring the design and data collection procedures to the research questions. On the other hand, this approach has resulted in many poor case studies, leaving it open to criticism, especially from the quantitative field of research. This article argues that there is a particular need in case studies to be explicit about the methodological choices one makes. This implies discussing the wide range of decisions concerned with design requirements, data collection procedures, data analysis, and validity and reliability. The approach here is to illustrate these decisions through a particular case study of two mergers in the financial industry in Norway.
In the past few years, a number of books have been published that give useful guidance in conducting qualitative studies (Gummesson 1988; Cassell & Symon 1994; Miles & Huberman 1994; Creswell 1998; Flick 1998; Rossman & Rallis 1998; Bryman & Burgess 1999; Marshall & Rossman 1999; Denzin & Lincoln 2000). One approach often mentioned is the case study (Yin 1989). Case studies are widely used in organizational studies in the social science disciplines of sociology, industrial relations, and anthropology (Hartley 1994). Such a study consists of detailed investigation of one or more organizations, or groups within organizations, with a view to providing an analysis of the context and processes involved in the phenomenon under study.
As opposed to other qualitative or quantitative research strategies, such as grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967) or surveys (Nachmias & Nachmias 1981), there are virtually no specific requirements guiding case research. Yin (1989) and Eisenhardt (1989) give useful insights into the case study as a research strategy, but leave most of the design decisions on the table. This is both the strength and the weakness of this approach. It is a strength because it allows tailoring the design and data collection procedures to the research questions. On the other hand, this approach has resulted in many poor case studies, leaving it open to criticism, especially from the quantitative field of research (Cook and Campbell 1979). The fact that the case study is a rather loose design implies that there are a number of choices that need to be addressed in a principled way.
Although case studies have become a common research strategy, the scope of methodology sections in articles published in journals is far too limited to give the readers a detailed and comprehensive view of the decisions taken in the particular studies, and, given the format of methodology sections, will remain so. The few books (Yin 1989, 1993; Hamel, Dufour, & Fortin 1993; Stake 1995) and book chapters on case studies (Hartley 1994; Silverman 2000) are, on the other hand, mainly normative and span a broad range of different kinds of case studies. One exception is Pettigrew (1990, 1992), who places the case study in the context of a research tradition (the Warwick process research).
Given the contextual nature of the case study and its strength in addressing contemporary phenomena in real-life contexts, I believe that there is a need for articles that provide a comprehensive overview of the case study process from the researcher’s perspective, emphasizing methodological considerations. This implies addressing the whole range of choices concerning specific design requirements, data collection procedures, data analysis, and validity and reliability.
Case studies are tailor-made for exploring new processes or behaviors or ones that are little understood (Hartley 1994). Hence, the approach is particularly useful for responding to how and why questions about a contemporary set of events (Leonard-Barton 1990). Moreover, researchers have argued that certain kinds of information can be difficult or even impossible to tackle by means other than qualitative approaches such as the case study (Sykes 1990). Gummesson (1988:76) argues that an important advantage of case study research is the opportunity for a holistic view of the process: “The detailed observations entailed in the case study method enable us to study many different aspects, examine them in relation to each other, view the process within its total environment and also use the researchers’ capacity for ‘verstehen.’ ”
The contextual nature of the case study is illustrated in Yin’s (1993:59) definition of a case study as an empirical inquiry that “investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context and addresses a situation in which the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.”
The key difference between the case study and other qualitative designs such as grounded theory and ethnography (Glaser & Strauss 1967; Strauss & Corbin 1990; Gioia & Chittipeddi 1991) is that the case study is open to the use of theory or conceptual categories that guide the research and analysis of data. In contrast, grounded theory or ethnography presupposes that theoretical perspectives are grounded in and emerge from firsthand data. Hartley (1994) argues that without a theoretical framework, the researcher is in severe danger of providing description without meaning. Gummesson (1988) says that a lack of preunderstanding will cause the researcher to spend considerable time gathering basic information. This preunderstanding may arise from general knowledge such as theories, models, and concepts or from specific knowledge of institutional conditions and social patterns. According to Gummesson, the key is not to require researchers to have split but dual personalities: “Those who are able to balance on a razor’s edge using their pre-understanding without being its slave” (p. 58).
The study that will be used for illustrative purposes is a comparative and longitudinal case study of organizational integration in mergers and acquisitions taking place in Norway. The study had two purposes: (1) to identify contextual factors and features of integration that facilitated or impeded organizational integration, and (2) to study how the three dimensions of organizational integration (integration of tasks, unification of power, and integration of cultures and identities) interrelated and evolved over time. Examples of contextual factors were relative power, degree of friendliness, and economic climate. Integration features included factors such as participation, communication, and allocation of positions and functions.
Mergers and acquisitions are inherently complex. Researchers in the field have suggested that managers continuously underestimate the task of integrating the merging organizations in the postintegration process (Haspeslaph & Jemison 1991). The process of organizational integration can lead to sharp interorganizational conflict as the different top management styles, organizational and work unit cultures, systems, and other aspects of organizational life come into contact (Blake & Mounton 1985; Schweiger & Walsh 1990; Cartwright & Cooper 1993). Furthermore, cultural change in mergers and acquisitions is compounded by additional uncertainties, ambiguities, and stress inherent in the combination process (Buono & Bowditch 1989).
I focused on two combinations: one merger and one acquisition. The first case was a merger between two major Norwegian banks, Bergen Bank and DnC (to be named DnB), that started in the late 1980s. The second case was a study of a major acquisition in the insurance industry (i.e., Gjensidige’s acquisition of Forenede), that started in the early 1990s. Both combinations aimed to realize operational synergies though merging the two organizations into one entity. This implied disruption of organizational boundaries and threat to the existing power distribution and organizational cultures.
The study of integration processes in mergers and acquisitions illustrates the need to find a design that opens for exploration of sensitive issues such as power struggles between the two merging organizations. Furthermore, the inherent complexity in the integration process, involving integration of tasks, unification of power, and cultural integration stressed the need for in-depth study of the phenomenon over time. To understand the cultural integration process, the design also had to be linked to the past history of the two organizations.
In the introduction, I stressed that a case is a rather loose design that requires that a number of design choices be made. In this section, I go through the most important choices I faced in the study of organizational integration in mergers and acquisitions. These include: (1) selection of cases; (2) sampling time; (3) choosing business areas, divisions, and sites; and (4) selection of and choices regarding data collection procedures, interviews, documents, and observation.
Selection of Cases
There are several choices involved in selecting cases. First, there is the question of how many cases to include. Second, one must sample cases and decide on a unit of analysis. I will explore these issues subsequently.
Single or Multiple Cases
Case studies can involve single or multiple cases. The problem of single cases is limitations in generalizability and several information-processing biases (Eisenhardt 1989).
One way to respond to these biases is by applying a multi-case approach (Leonard-Barton 1990). Multiple cases augment external validity and help guard against observer biases. Moreover, multi-case sampling adds confidence to findings. By looking at a range of similar and contrasting cases, we can understand a single-case finding, grounding it by specifying how and where and, if possible, why it behaves as it does. (Miles & Huberman 1994)
Given these limitations of the single case study, it is desirable to include more than one case study in the study. However, the desire for depth and a pluralist perspective and tracking the cases over time implies that the number of cases must be fairly few. I chose two cases, which clearly does not support generalizability any more than does one case, but allows for comparison and contrast between the cases as well as a deeper and richer look at each case.
Originally, I planned to include a third case in the study. Due to changes in management during the initial integration process, my access to the case was limited and I left this case entirely. However, a positive side effect was that it allowed a deeper investigation of the two original cases and in hindsight turned out to be a good decision.
Sampling Cases
The logic of sampling cases is fundamentally different from statistical sampling. The logic in case studies involves theoretical sampling, in which the goal is to choose cases that are likely to replicate or extend the emergent theory or to fill theoretical categories and provide examples for polar types (Eisenhardt 1989). Hence, whereas quantitative sampling concerns itself with representativeness, qualitative sampling seeks information richness and selects the cases purposefully rather than randomly (Crabtree and Miller 1992).
The choice of cases was guided by George (1979) and Pettigrew’s (1990) recommendations. The aim was to find cases that matched the three dimensions in the dependent variable and provided variation in the contextual factors, thus representing polar cases.
To match the choice of outcome variable, organizational integration, I chose cases in which the purpose was to fully consolidate the merging parties’ operations. A full consolidation would imply considerable disruption in the organizational boundaries and would be expected to affect the task-related, political, and cultural features of the organizations. As for the contextual factors, the two cases varied in contextual factors such as relative power, friendliness, and economic climate. The DnB merger was a friendly combination between two equal partners in an unfriendly economic climate. Gjensidige’s acquisition of Forenede was, in contrast, an unfriendly and unbalanced acquisition in a friendly economic climate.
Unit of Analysis
Another way to respond to researchers’ and respondents’ biases is to have more than one unit of analysis in each case (Yin 1993). This implies that, in addition to developing contrasts between the cases, researchers can focus on contrasts within the cases (Hartley 1994). In case studies, there is a choice of a holistic or embedded design (Yin 1989). A holistic design examines the global nature of the phenomenon, whereas an embedded design also pays attention to subunit(s).
I used an embedded design to analyze the cases (i.e., within each case, I also gave attention to subunits and subprocesses). In both cases, I compared the combination processes in the various divisions and local networks. Moreover, I compared three distinct change processes in DnB: before the merger, during the initial combination, and two years after the merger. The overall and most important unit of analysis in the two cases was, however, the integration process.
Sampling Time
According to Pettigrew (1990), time sets a reference for what changes can be seen and how those changes are explained. When conducting a case study, there are several important issues to decide when sampling time. The first regards how many times data should be collected, while the second concerns when to enter the organizations. There is also a need to decide whether to collect data on a continuous basis or in distinct periods.
Number of data collections. I studied the process by collecting real time and retrospective data at two points in time, with one-and-a-half- and two-year intervals in the two cases. Collecting data twice had some interesting implications for the interpretations of the data. During the first data collection in the DnB study, for example, I collected retrospective data about the premerger and initial combination phase and real-time data about the second step in the combination process.
Although I gained a picture of how the employees experienced the second stage of the combination process, it was too early to assess the effects of this process at that stage. I entered the organization two years later and found interesting effects that I had not anticipated the first time. Moreover, it was interesting to observe how people’s attitudes toward the merger processes changed over time to be more positive and less emotional.
When to enter the organizations. It would be desirable to have had the opportunity to collect data in the precombination processes. However, researchers are rarely given access in this period due to secrecy. The emphasis in this study was to focus on the postcombination process. As such, the precombination events were classified as contextual factors. This implied that it was most important to collect real-time data after the parties had been given government approval to merge or acquire. What would have been desirable was to gain access earlier in the postcombination process. This was not possible because access had to be negotiated. Due to the change of CEO in the middle of the merger process and the need for renegotiating access, this took longer than expected.
Regarding the second case, I was restricted by the time frame of the study. In essence, I had to choose between entering the combination process as soon as governmental approval was given, or entering the organization at a later stage. In light of the previous studies in the field that have failed to go beyond the initial two years, and given the need to collect data about the cultural integration process, I chose the latter strategy. And I decided to enter the organizations at two distinct periods of time rather than on a continuous basis.
There were several reasons for this approach, some methodological and some practical. First, data collection on a continuous basis would have required use of extensive observation that I didn’t have access to, and getting access to two data collections in DnB was difficult in itself. Second, I had a stay abroad between the first and second data collection in Gjensidige. Collecting data on a continuous basis would probably have allowed for better mapping of the ongoing integration process, but the contrasts between the two different stages in the integration process that I wanted to elaborate would probably be more difficult to detect. In Table 1 I have listed the periods of time in which I collected data in the two combinations.
Even when the cases for a study have been chosen, it is often necessary to make further choices within each case to make the cases researchable. The most important criteria that set the boundaries for the study are importance or criticality, relevance, and representativeness. At the time of the data collection, my criteria for making these decisions were not as conscious as they may appear here. Rather, being restricted by time and my own capacity as a researcher, I had to limit the sites and act instinctively. In both cases, I decided to concentrate on the core businesses (criticality criterion) and left out the business units that were only mildly affected by the integration process (relevance criterion). In the choice of regional offices, I used the representativeness criterion as the number of offices widely exceeded the number of sites possible to study. In making these choices, I relied on key informants in the organizations.
The choice of data collection procedures should be guided by the research question and the choice of design. The case study approach typically combines data collection methods such as archives, interviews, questionnaires, and observations (Yin 1989). This triangulated methodology provides stronger substantiation of constructs and hypotheses. However, the choice of data collection methods is also subject to constraints in time, financial resources, and access.
I chose a combination of interviews, archives, and observation, with main emphasis on the first two. Conducting a survey was inappropriate due to the lack of established concepts and indicators. The reason for limited observation, on the other hand, was due to problems in obtaining access early in the study and time and resource constraints. In addition to choosing among several different data collection methods, there are a number of choices to be made for each individual method.
When relying on interviews as the primary data collection method, the issue of building trust between the researcher and the interviewees becomes very important. I addressed this issue by several means. First, I established a procedure of how to approach the interviewees. In most cases, I called them first, then sent out a letter explaining the key features of the project and outlining the broad issues to be addressed in the interview. In this letter, the support from the institution’s top management was also communicated. In most cases, the top management’s support of the project was an important prerequisite for the respondent’s input. Some interviewees did, however, fear that their input would be open to the top management without disguising the information source. Hence, it became important to communicate how I intended to use and store the information.
To establish trust, I also actively used my preunderstanding of the context in the first case and the phenomenon in the second case. As I built up an understanding of the cases, I used this information to gain confidence. The active use of my preunderstanding did, however, pose important challenges in not revealing too much of the research hypotheses and in balancing between asking open-ended questions and appearing knowledgeable.
There are two choices involved in conducting interviews. The first concerns the sampling of interviewees. The second is that you must decide on issues such as the structure of the interviews, use of tape recorder, and involvement of other researchers.
Sampling Interviewees
Following the desire for detailed knowledge of each case and for grasping different participant’s views the aim was, in line with Pettigrew (1990), to apply a pluralist view by describing and analyzing competing versions of reality as seen by actors in the combination processes.
I used four criteria for sampling informants. First, I drew informants from populations representing multiple perspectives. The first data collection in DnB was primarily focused on the top management level. Moreover, most middle managers in the first data collection were employed at the head offices, either in Bergen or Oslo. In the second data collection, I compensated for this skew by including eight local middle managers in the sample. The difference between the number of employees interviewed in DnB and Gjensidige was primarily due to the fact that Gjensidige has three unions, whereas DnB only has one. The distribution of interviewees is outlined in Table 2 .
The second criterion was to use multiple informants. According to Glick et al. (1990), an important advantage of using multiple informants is that the validity of information provided by one informant can be checked against that provided by other informants. Moreover, the validity of the data used by the researcher can be enhanced by resolving the discrepancies among different informants’ reports. Hence, I selected multiple respondents from each perspective.
Third, I focused on key informants who were expected to be knowledgeable about the combination process. These people included top management members, managers, and employees involved in the integration project. To validate the information from these informants, I also used a fourth criterion by selecting managers and employees who had been affected by the process but who were not involved in the project groups.
Structured versus unstructured. In line with the explorative nature of the study, the goal of the interviews was to see the research topic from the perspective of the interviewee, and to understand why he or she came to have this particular perspective. To meet this goal, King (1994:15) recommends that one have “a low degree of structure imposed on the interviewer, a preponderance of open questions, a focus on specific situations and action sequences in the world of the interviewee rather than abstractions and general opinions.” In line with these recommendations, the collection of primary data in this study consists of unstructured interviews.
Using tape recorders and involving other researchers. The majority of the interviews were tape-recorded, and I could thus concentrate fully on asking questions and responding to the interviewees’ answers. In the few interviews that were not tape-recorded, most of which were conducted in the first phase of the DnB-study, two researchers were present. This was useful as we were both able to discuss the interviews later and had feedback on the role of an interviewer.
In hindsight, however, I wish that these interviews had been tape-recorded to maintain the level of accuracy and richness of data. Hence, in the next phases of data collection, I tape-recorded all interviews, with two exceptions (people who strongly opposed the use of this device). All interviews that were tape-recorded were transcribed by me in full, which gave me closeness and a good grasp of the data.
When organizations merge or make acquisitions, there are often a vast number of documents to choose from to build up an understanding of what has happened and to use in the analyses. Furthermore, when firms make acquisitions or merge, they often hire external consultants, each of whom produces more documents. Due to time constraints, it is seldom possible to collect and analyze all these documents, and thus the researcher has to make a selection.
The choice of documentation was guided by my previous experience with merger and acquisition processes and the research question. Hence, obtaining information on the postintegration process was more important than gaining access to the due-diligence analysis. As I learned about the process, I obtained more documents on specific issues. I did not, however, gain access to all the documents I asked for, and, in some cases, documents had been lost or shredded.
The documents were helpful in a number of ways. First, and most important, they were used as inputs to the interview guide and saved me time, because I did not have to ask for facts in the interviews. They were also useful for tracing the history of the organizations and statements made by key people in the organizations. Third, the documents were helpful in counteracting the biases of the interviews. A list of the documents used in writing the cases is shown in Table 3 .
Observation
The major strength of direct observation is that it is unobtrusive and does not require direct interaction with participants (Adler and Adler 1994). Observation produces rigor when it is combined with other methods. When the researcher has access to group processes, direct observation can illuminate the discrepancies between what people said in the interviews and casual conversations and what they actually do (Pettigrew 1990).
As with interviews, there are a number of choices involved in conducting observations. Although I did some observations in the study, I used interviews as the key data collection source. Discussion in this article about observations will thus be somewhat limited. Nevertheless, I faced a number of choices in conducting observations, including type of observation, when to enter, how much observation to conduct, and which groups to observe.
The are four ways in which an observer may gather data: (1) the complete participant who operates covertly, concealing any intention to observe the setting; (2) the participant-as-observer, who forms relationships and participates in activities, but makes no secret of his or her intentions to observe events; (3) the observer-as-participant, who maintains only superficial contact with the people being studied; and (4) the complete observer, who merely stands back and eavesdrops on the proceedings (Waddington 1994).
In this study, I used the second and third ways of observing. The use of the participant-as-observer mode, on which much ethnographic research is based, was rather limited in the study. There were two reasons for this. First, I had limited time available for collecting data, and in my view interviews made more effective use of this limited time than extensive participant observation. Second, people were rather reluctant to let me observe these political and sensitive processes until they knew me better and felt I could be trusted. Indeed, I was dependent on starting the data collection before having built sufficient trust to observe key groups in the integration process. Nevertheless, Gjensidige allowed me to study two employee seminars to acquaint me with the organization. Here I admitted my role as an observer but participated fully in the activities. To achieve variation, I chose two seminars representing polar groups of employees.
As observer-as-participant, I attended a top management meeting at the end of the first data collection in Gjensidige and observed the respondents during interviews and in more informal meetings, such as lunches. All these observations gave me an opportunity to validate the data from the interviews. Observing the top management group was by far the most interesting and rewarding in terms of input.
Both DnB and Gjensidige started to open up for more extensive observation when I was about to finish the data collection. By then, I had built up the trust needed to undertake this approach. Unfortunately, this came a little late for me to take advantage of it.
Published studies generally describe research sites and data-collection methods, but give little space to discuss the analysis (Eisenhardt 1989). Thus, one cannot follow how a researcher arrives at the final conclusions from a large volume of field notes (Miles and Huberman 1994).
In this study, I went through the stages by which the data were reduced and analyzed. This involved establishing the chronology, coding, writing up the data according to phases and themes, introducing organizational integration into the analysis, comparing the cases, and applying the theory. I will discuss these phases accordingly.
The first step in the analysis was to establish the chronology of the cases. To do this, I used internal and external documents. I wrote the chronologies up and included appendices in the final report.
The next step was to code the data into phases and themes reflecting the contextual factors and features of integration. For the interviews, this implied marking the text with a specific phase and a theme, and grouping the paragraphs on the same theme and phase together. I followed the same procedure in organizing the documents.
I then wrote up the cases using phases and themes to structure them. Before starting to write up the cases, I scanned the information on each theme, built up the facts and filled in with perceptions and reactions that were illustrative and representative of the data.
The documents were primarily useful in establishing the facts, but they also provided me with some perceptions and reactions that were validated in the interviews. The documents used included internal letters and newsletters as well as articles from the press. The interviews were less factual, as intended, and gave me input to assess perceptions and reactions. The limited observation was useful to validate the data from the interviews. The result of this step was two descriptive cases.
To make each case more analytical, I introduced the three dimensions of organizational integration—integration of tasks, unification of power, and cultural integration—into the analysis. This helped to focus the case and to develop a framework that could be used to compare the cases. The cases were thus structured according to phases, organizational integration, and themes reflecting the factors and features in the study.
I took all these steps to become more familiar with each case as an individual entity. According to Eisenhardt (1989:540), this is a process that “allows the unique patterns of each case to emerge before the investigators push to generalise patterns across cases. In addition it gives investigators a rich familiarity with each case which, in turn, accelerates cross-case comparison.”
The comparison between the cases constituted the next step in the analysis. Here, I used the categories from the case chapters, filled in the features and factors, and compared and contrasted the findings. The idea behind cross-case searching tactics is to force investigators to go beyond initial impressions, especially through the use of structural and diverse lenses on the data. These tactics improve the likelihood of accurate and reliable theory, that is, theory with a close fit to the data (Eisenhardt 1989).
As a result, I had a number of overall themes, concepts, and relationships that had emerged from the within-case analysis and cross-case comparisons. The next step was to compare these emergent findings with theory from the organizational field of mergers and acquisitions, as well as other relevant perspectives.
This method of generalization is known as analytical generalization. In this approach, a previously developed theory is used as a template with which to compare the empirical results of the case study (Yin 1989). This comparison of emergent concepts, theory, or hypotheses with the extant literature involves asking what it is similar to, what it contradicts, and why. The key to this process is to consider a broad range of theory (Eisenhardt 1989). On the whole, linking emergent theory to existent literature enhances the internal validity, generalizability, and theoretical level of theory-building from case research.
According to Eisenhardt (1989), examining literature that conflicts with the emergent literature is important for two reasons. First, the chance of neglecting conflicting findings is reduced. Second, “conflicting results forces researchers into a more creative, frame-breaking mode of thinking than they might otherwise be able to achieve” (p. 544). Similarly, Eisenhardt (1989) claims that literature discussing similar findings is important because it ties together underlying similarities in phenomena not normally associated with each other. The result is often a theory with a stronger internal validity, wider generalizability, and a higher conceptual level.
The analytical generalization in the study included exploring and developing the concepts and examining the relationships between the constructs. In carrying out this analytical generalization, I acted on Eisenhardt’s (1989) recommendation to use a broad range of theory. First, I compared and contrasted the findings with the organizational stream on mergers and acquisition literature. Then I discussed other relevant literatures, including strategic change, power and politics, social justice, and social identity theory to explore how these perspectives could contribute to the understanding of the findings. Finally, I discussed the findings that could not be explained either by the merger and acquisition literature or the four theoretical perspectives.
In every scientific study, questions are raised about whether the study is valid and reliable. The issues of validity and reliability in case studies are just as important as for more deductive designs, but the application is fundamentally different.
The problems of validity in qualitative studies are related to the fact that most qualitative researchers work alone in the field, they focus on the findings rather than describe how the results were reached, and they are limited in processing information (Miles and Huberman 1994).
Researchers writing about qualitative methods have questioned whether the same criteria can be used for qualitative and quantitative studies (Kirk & Miller 1986; Sykes 1990; Maxwell 1992). The problem with the validity criteria suggested in qualitative research is that there is little consistency across the articles as each author suggests a new set of criteria.
One approach in examining validity and reliability is to apply the criteria used in quantitative research. Hence, the criteria to be examined here are objectivity/intersubjectivity, construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability.
Objectivity/Intersubjectivity
The basic issue of objectivity can be framed as one of relative neutrality and reasonable freedom from unacknowledged research biases (Miles & Huberman 1994). In a real-time longitudinal study, the researcher is in danger of losing objectivity and of becoming too involved with the organization, the people, and the process. Hence, Leonard-Barton (1990) claims that one may be perceived as, and may even become, an advocate rather than an observer.
According to King (1994), however, qualitative research, in seeking to describe and make sense of the world, does not require researchers to strive for objectivity and distance themselves from research participants. Indeed, to do so would make good qualitative research impossible, as the interviewer’s sensitivity to subjective aspects of his or her relationship with the interviewee is an essential part of the research process (King 1994:31).
This does not imply, however, that the issue of possible research bias can be ignored. It is just as important as in a structured quantitative interview that the findings are not simply the product of the researcher’s prejudices and prior experience. One way to guard against this bias is for the researcher to explicitly recognize his or her presuppositions and to make a conscious effort to set these aside in the analysis (Gummesson 1988). Furthermore, rival conclusions should be considered (Miles & Huberman 1994).
My experience from the first phase of the DnB study was that it was difficult to focus the questions and the analysis of the data when the research questions were too vague and broad. As such, developing a framework before collecting the data for the study was useful in guiding the collection and analysis of data. Nevertheless, it was important to be open-minded and receptive to new and surprising data. In the DnB study, for example, the positive effect of the reorganization process on the integration of cultures came as a complete surprise to me and thus needed further elaboration.
I also consciously searched for negative evidence and problems by interviewing outliers (Miles & Huberman 1994) and asking problem-oriented questions. In Gjensidige, the first interviews with the top management revealed a much more positive perception of the cultural integration process than I had expected. To explore whether this was a result of overreliance on elite informants, I continued posing problem-oriented questions to outliers and people at lower levels in the organization. Moreover, I told them about the DnB study to be explicit about my presuppositions.
Another important issue when assessing objectivity is whether other researchers can trace the interpretations made in the case studies, or what is called intersubjectivity. To deal with this issue, Miles & Huberman (1994) suggest that: (1) the study’s general methods and procedures should be described in detail, (2) one should be able to follow the process of analysis, (3) conclusions should be explicitly linked with exhibits of displayed data, and (4) the data from the study should be made available for reanalysis by others.
In response to these requirements, I described the study’s data collection procedures and processing in detail. Then, the primary data were displayed in the written report in the form of quotations and extracts from documents to support and illustrate the interpretations of the data. Because the study was written up in English, I included the Norwegian text in a separate appendix. Finally, all the primary data from the study were accessible for a small group of distinguished researchers.
Construct Validity
Construct validity refers to whether there is substantial evidence that the theoretical paradigm correctly corresponds to observation (Kirk & Miller 1986). In this form of validity, the issue is the legitimacy of the application of a given concept or theory to established facts.
The strength of qualitative research lies in the flexible and responsive interaction between the interviewer and the respondents (Sykes 1990). Thus, meaning can be probed, topics covered easily from a number of angles, and questions made clear for respondents. This is an advantage for exploring the concepts (construct or theoretical validity) and the relationships between them (internal validity). Similarly, Hakim (1987) says the great strength of qualitative research is the validity of data obtained because individuals are interviewed in sufficient detail for the results to be taken as true, correct, and believable reports of their views and experiences.
Construct validity can be strengthened by applying a longitudinal multicase approach, triangulation, and use of feedback loops. The advantage of applying a longitudinal approach is that one gets the opportunity to test sensitivity of construct measures to the passage of time. Leonard-Barton (1990), for example, found that one of her main constructs, communicability, varied across time and relative to different groups of users. Thus, the longitudinal study aided in defining the construct more precisely. By using more than one case study, one can validate stability of construct across situations (Leonard-Barton 1990). Since my study only consists of two case studies, the opportunity to test stability of constructs across cases is somewhat limited. However, the use of more than one unit of analysis helps to overcome this limitation.
Construct validity is strengthened by the use of multiple sources of evidence to build construct measures, which define the construct and distinguish it from other constructs. These multiple sources of evidence can include multiple viewpoints within and across the data sources. My study responds to these requirements in its sampling of interviewees and uses of multiple data sources.
Use of feedback loops implies returning to interviewees with interpretations and developing theory and actively seeking contradictions in data (Crabtree & Miller 1992; King 1994). In DnB, the written report had to be approved by the bank’s top management after the first data collection. Apart from one minor correction, the bank had no objections to the established facts. In their comments on my analysis, some of the top managers expressed the view that the political process had been overemphasized, and that the CEO’s role in initiating a strategic process was undervalued. Hence, an important objective in the second data collection was to explore these comments further. Moreover, the report was not as positive as the management had hoped for, and negotiations had to be conducted to publish the report. The result of these negotiations was that publication of the report was postponed one-and-a-half years.
The experiences from the first data collection in the DnB had some consequences. I was more cautious and brought up the problems of confidentiality and the need to publish at the outset of the Gjensidige study. Also, I had to struggle to get access to the DnB case for the second data collection and some of the information I asked for was not released. At Gjensidige, I sent a preliminary draft of the case chapter to the corporation’s top management for comments, in addition to having second interviews with a small number of people. Beside testing out the factual description, these sessions gave me the opportunity to test out the theoretical categories established as a result of the within-case analysis.
Internal Validity
Internal validity concerns the validity of the postulated relationships among the concepts. The main problem of internal validity as a criterion in qualitative research is that it is often not open to scrutiny. According to Sykes (1990), the researcher can always provide a plausible account and, with careful editing, may ensure its coherence. Recognition of this problem has led to calls for better documentation of the processes of data collection, the data itself, and the interpretative contribution of the researcher. The discussion of how I met these requirements was outlined in the section on objectivity/subjectivity above.
However, there are some advantages in using qualitative methods, too. First, the flexible and responsive methods of data collection allow cross-checking and amplification of information from individual units as it is generated. Respondents’ opinions and understandings can be thoroughly explored. The internal validity results from strategies that eliminate ambiguity and contradiction, filling in detail and establishing strong connections in data.
Second, the longitudinal study enables one to track cause and effect. Moreover, it can make one aware of intervening variables (Leonard-Barton 1990). Eisenhardt (1989:542) states, “Just as hypothesis testing research an apparent relationship may simply be a spurious correlation or may reflect the impact of some third variable on each of the other two. Therefore, it is important to discover the underlying reasons for why the relationship exists.”
Generalizability
According to Mitchell (1983), case studies are not based on statistical inference. Quite the contrary, the inferring process turns exclusively on the theoretically necessary links among the features in the case study. The validity of the extrapolation depends not on the typicality or representativeness of the case but on the cogency of the theoretical reasoning. Hartley (1994:225) claims, “The detailed knowledge of the organization and especially the knowledge about the processes underlying the behaviour and its context can help to specify the conditions under which behaviour can be expected to occur. In other words, the generalisation is about theoretical propositions not about populations.”
Generalizability is normally based on the assumption that this theory may be useful in making sense of similar persons or situations (Maxwell 1992). One way to increase the generalizability is to apply a multicase approach (Leonard-Barton 1990). The advantage of this approach is that one can replicate the findings from one case study to another. This replication logic is similar to that used on multiple experiments (Yin 1993).
Given the choice of two case studies, the generalizability criterion is not supported in this study. Through the discussion of my choices, I have tried to show that I had to strike a balance between the need for depth and mapping changes over time and the number of cases. In doing so, I deliberately chose to provide a deeper and richer look at each case, allowing the reader to make judgments about the applicability rather than making a case for generalizability.
Reliability
Reliability focuses on whether the process of the study is consistent and reasonably stable over time and across researchers and methods (Miles & Huberman 1994). In the context of qualitative research, reliability is concerned with two questions (Sykes 1990): Could the same study carried out by two researchers produce the same findings? and Could a study be repeated using the same researcher and respondents to yield the same findings?
The problem of reliability in qualitative research is that differences between replicated studies using different researchers are to be expected. However, while it may not be surprising that different researchers generate different findings and reach different conclusions, controlling for reliability may still be relevant. Kirk and Miller’s (1986:311) definition takes into account the particular relationship between the researcher’s orientation, the generation of data, and its interpretation:
For reliability to be calculated, it is incumbent on the scientific investigator to document his or her procedure. This must be accomplished at such a level of abstraction that the loci of decisions internal to the project are made apparent. The curious public deserves to know how the qualitative researcher prepares him or herself for the endeavour, and how the data is collected and analysed.
The study addresses these requirements by discussing my point of departure regarding experience and framework, the sampling and data collection procedures, and data analysis.
Case studies often lack academic rigor and are, as such, regarded as inferior to more rigorous methods where there are more specific guidelines for collecting and analyzing data. These criticisms stress that there is a need to be very explicit about the choices one makes and the need to justify them.
One reason why case studies are criticized may be that researchers disagree about the definition and the purpose of carrying out case studies. Case studies have been regarded as a design (Cook and Campbell 1979), as a qualitative methodology (Cassell and Symon 1994), as a particular data collection procedure (Andersen 1997), and as a research strategy (Yin 1989). Furthermore, the purpose for carrying out case studies is unclear. Some regard case studies as supplements to more rigorous qualitative studies to be carried out in the early stage of the research process; others claim that it can be used for multiple purposes and as a research strategy in its own right (Gummesson 1988; Yin 1989). Given this unclear status, researchers need to be very clear about their interpretation of the case study and the purpose of carrying out the study.
This article has taken Yin’s (1989) definition of the case study as a research strategy as a starting point and argued that the choice of the case study should be guided by the research question(s). In the illustrative study, I used a case study strategy because of a need to explore sensitive, ill-defined concepts in depth, over time, taking into account the context and history of the mergers and the existing knowledge about the phenomenon. However, the choice of a case study strategy extended rather than limited the number of decisions to be made. In Schramm’s (1971, cited in Yin 1989:22–23) words, “The essence of a case study, the central tendency among all types of case study, is that it tries to illuminate a decision or set of decisions, why they were taken, how they were implemented, and with what result.”
Hence, the purpose of this article has been to illustrate the wide range of decisions that need to be made in the context of a particular case study and to discuss the methodological considerations linked to these decisions. I argue that there is a particular need in case studies to be explicit about the methodological choices one makes and that these choices can be best illustrated through a case study of the case study strategy.
As in all case studies, however, there are limitations to the generalizability of using one particular case study for illustrative purposes. As such, the strength of linking the methodological considerations to a specific context and phenomenon also becomes a weakness. However, I would argue that the questions raised in this article are applicable to many case studies, but that the answers are very likely to vary. The design choices are shown in Table 4 . Hence, researchers choosing a longitudinal, comparative case study need to address the same set of questions with regard to design, data collection procedures, and analysis, but they are likely to come up with other conclusions, given their different research questions.
Adler, P. A., and P. Adler. 1994. Observational techniques. In Handbook of qualitative research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 377–92. London: Sage.
Andersen, S. S. 1997. Case-studier og generalisering: Forskningsstrategi og design (Case studies and generalization: Research strategy and design). Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget.
Blake, R. R., and J. S. Mounton. 1985. How to achieve integration on the human side of the merger. Organizational Dynamics 13 (3): 41–56.
Bryman, A., and R. G. Burgess. 1999. Qualitative research. London: Sage.
Buono, A. F., and J. L. Bowditch. 1989. The human side of mergers and acquisitions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cartwright, S., and C. L. Cooper. 1993. The psychological impact of mergers and acquisitions on the individual: A study of building society managers. Human Relations 46 (3): 327–47.
Cassell, C., and G. Symon, eds. 1994. Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide. London: Sage.
Cook, T. D., and D. T. Campbell. 1979. Quasi experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Crabtree, B. F., and W. L. Miller. 1992. Primary care research: A multimethod typology and qualitative road map. In Doing qualitative research: Methods for primary care, edited by B. F. Crabtree and W. L. Miller, 3–28. Vol. 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. 1998. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., and L. S. Lincoln. 2000. Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 532–50.
Flick, U. 1998. An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.
George, A. L. 1979. Case studies and theory development: The method of structured, focused comparison. In Diplomacy: New approaches in history, theory, and policy, edited by P. G. Lauren, 43–68. New York: Free Press.
Gioia, D. A., and K. Chittipeddi. 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal 12:433–48.
Glaser, B. G., and A. L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Glick, W. H, G. P. Huber, C. C. Miller, D. H. Doty, and K. M. Sutcliffe. 1990. Studying changes in organizational design and effectiveness: Retrospective event histories and periodic assessments. Organization Science 1 (3): 293–312.
Gummesson, E. 1988. Qualitative methods in management research. Lund, Norway: Studentlitteratur, Chartwell-Bratt.
Hakim, C. 1987. Research design. Strategies and choices in the design of social research. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Hamel, J., S. Dufour, and D. Fortin. 1993. Case study methods. London: Sage.
Hartley, J. F. 1994. Case studies in organizational research. In Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide, edited by C. Cassell and G. Symon, 209–29. London: Sage.
Haspeslaph, P., and D. B. Jemison. 1991. The challenge of renewal through acquisitions. Planning Review 19 (2): 27–32.
King, N. 1994. The qualitative research interview. In Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide, edited by C. Cassell and G. Symon, 14–36. London: Sage.
Kirk, J., and M. L. Miller. 1986. Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research Methods Series 1. London: Sage.
Leonard-Barton, D. 1990.Adual methodology for case studies: Synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites. Organization Science 1 (3): 248–66.
Marshall, C., and G. B. Rossman. 1999. Designing qualitative research. London: Sage.
Maxwell, J. A. 1992. Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review 62 (3): 279–99.
Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis. 2d ed. London: Sage.
Mitchell, J. C. 1983. Case and situation analysis. Sociology Review 51 (2): 187–211.
Nachmias, C., and D. Nachmias. 1981. Research methods in the social sciences. London: Edward Arnhold.
Pettigrew, A. M. 1990. Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science 1 (3): 267–92.
___. (1992). The character and significance of strategic process research. Strategic Management Journal 13:5–16.
Rossman, G. B., and S. F. Rallis. 1998. Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schramm, W. 1971. Notes on case studies for instructional media projects. Working paper for Academy of Educational Development, Washington DC.
Schweiger, D. M., and J. P. Walsh. 1990. Mergers and acquisitions: An interdisciplinary view. In Research in personnel and human resource management, edited by G. R. Ferris and K. M. Rowland, 41–107. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Silverman, D. 2000. Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage.
Stake, R. E. 1995. The art of case study research. London: Sage.
Strauss, A. L., and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sykes, W. 1990. Validity and reliability in qualitative market research: A review of the literature. Journal of the Market Research Society 32 (3): 289–328.
Waddington, D. 1994. Participant observation. In Qualitative methods in organizational research, edited by C. Cassell and G. Symon, 107–22. London: Sage.
Yin, R. K. 1989. Case study research: Design and methods. Applied Social Research Series, Vol. 5. London: Sage.
___. 1993. Applications of case study research. Applied Social Research Series, Vol. 34. London: Sage.
Christine Benedichte Meyer is an associate professor in the Department of Strategy and Management in the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, Bergen-Sandviken, Norway. Her research interests are mergers and acquisitions, strategic change, and qualitative research. Recent publications include: “Allocation Processes in Mergers and Acquisitions: An Organisational Justice Perspective” (British Journal of Management 2001) and “Motives for Acquisitions in the Norwegian Financial Industry” (CEMS Business Review 1997).
Reprints and permissions
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
White, R.E., Cooper, K. (2022). Case Study Research. In: Qualitative Research in the Post-Modern Era. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85124-8_7
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85124-8_7
Published : 29 September 2022
Publisher Name : Springer, Cham
Print ISBN : 978-3-030-85126-2
Online ISBN : 978-3-030-85124-8
eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)
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
Policies and ethics
In general, quantitative research seeks to understand the causal or correlational relationship between variables through testing hypotheses, whereas qualitative research seeks to understand a phenomenon within a real-world context through the use of interviews and observation. Both types of research are valid, and certain research topics are better suited to one approach or the other. However, it is important to understand the differences between qualitative and quantitative research so that you will be able to conduct an informed critique and analysis of any articles that you read, because you will understand the different advantages, disadvantages, and influencing factors for each approach.
The table below illustrates the main differences between qualitative and quantitative research. Be aware that these are generalizations, and that not every research study or article will fit neatly into these categories.
|
|
|
| Complexity, contextual, inductive logic, discovery, exploration | Experiment, random assignment, independent/dependent variable, causal/correlational, validity, deductive logic |
| Understand a phenomenon | Discover causal relationships or describe a phenomenon |
| Purposive sample, small | Random sample, large |
| Focus groups, interviews, field observation | Tests, surveys, questionnaires |
| Phenomenological, grounded theory, ethnographic, case study, historical/narrative research, participatory research, clinical research | Experimental, quasi-experimental, descriptive, methodological, exploratory, comparative, correlational, developmental (cross-sectional, longitudinal/prospective/cohort, retrospective/ex post facto/case control) |
Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and integrative reviews are not exactly designs, but they synthesize, analyze, and compare the results from many research studies and are somewhat quantitative in nature. However, they are not truly quantitative or qualitative studies.
References:
LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2010). Nursing research: Methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice (7 th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier
Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology (3 rd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE
This 2-minute video provides a simplified overview of the primary distinctions between quantitative and qualitative research.
It's important to keep in mind that research studies and articles are not always 100% qualitative or 100% quantitative. A mixed methods study involves both qualitative and quantitative approaches. If you need to find articles that are purely qualitative or purely quanititative, be sure to look carefully at the methodology sections to make sure the studies did not utilize both methods.
Home » Quantitative Research – Methods, Types and Analysis
Table of Contents
Quantitative research is a type of research that collects and analyzes numerical data to test hypotheses and answer research questions . This research typically involves a large sample size and uses statistical analysis to make inferences about a population based on the data collected. It often involves the use of surveys, experiments, or other structured data collection methods to gather quantitative data.
Quantitative Research Methods are as follows:
Descriptive research design is used to describe the characteristics of a population or phenomenon being studied. This research method is used to answer the questions of what, where, when, and how. Descriptive research designs use a variety of methods such as observation, case studies, and surveys to collect data. The data is then analyzed using statistical tools to identify patterns and relationships.
Correlational research design is used to investigate the relationship between two or more variables. Researchers use correlational research to determine whether a relationship exists between variables and to what extent they are related. This research method involves collecting data from a sample and analyzing it using statistical tools such as correlation coefficients.
Quasi-experimental research design is used to investigate cause-and-effect relationships between variables. This research method is similar to experimental research design, but it lacks full control over the independent variable. Researchers use quasi-experimental research designs when it is not feasible or ethical to manipulate the independent variable.
Experimental research design is used to investigate cause-and-effect relationships between variables. This research method involves manipulating the independent variable and observing the effects on the dependent variable. Researchers use experimental research designs to test hypotheses and establish cause-and-effect relationships.
Survey research involves collecting data from a sample of individuals using a standardized questionnaire. This research method is used to gather information on attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of individuals. Researchers use survey research to collect data quickly and efficiently from a large sample size. Survey research can be conducted through various methods such as online, phone, mail, or in-person interviews.
Here are some commonly used quantitative research analysis methods:
Statistical analysis is the most common quantitative research analysis method. It involves using statistical tools and techniques to analyze the numerical data collected during the research process. Statistical analysis can be used to identify patterns, trends, and relationships between variables, and to test hypotheses and theories.
Regression analysis is a statistical technique used to analyze the relationship between one dependent variable and one or more independent variables. Researchers use regression analysis to identify and quantify the impact of independent variables on the dependent variable.
Factor analysis is a statistical technique used to identify underlying factors that explain the correlations among a set of variables. Researchers use factor analysis to reduce a large number of variables to a smaller set of factors that capture the most important information.
Structural equation modeling is a statistical technique used to test complex relationships between variables. It involves specifying a model that includes both observed and unobserved variables, and then using statistical methods to test the fit of the model to the data.
Time series analysis is a statistical technique used to analyze data that is collected over time. It involves identifying patterns and trends in the data, as well as any seasonal or cyclical variations.
Multilevel modeling is a statistical technique used to analyze data that is nested within multiple levels. For example, researchers might use multilevel modeling to analyze data that is collected from individuals who are nested within groups, such as students nested within schools.
Quantitative research has many applications across a wide range of fields. Here are some common examples:
Here are some key characteristics of quantitative research:
Here are some examples of quantitative research in different fields:
Here is a general overview of how to conduct quantitative research:
Here are some situations when quantitative research can be appropriate:
The purpose of quantitative research is to systematically investigate and measure the relationships between variables or phenomena using numerical data and statistical analysis. The main objectives of quantitative research include:
Quantitative research is used in many different fields, including social sciences, business, engineering, and health sciences. It can be used to investigate a wide range of phenomena, from human behavior and attitudes to physical and biological processes. The purpose of quantitative research is to provide reliable and valid data that can be used to inform decision-making and improve understanding of the world around us.
There are several advantages of quantitative research, including:
There are several limitations of quantitative research, including:
Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer
BMC Health Services Research volume 24 , Article number: 880 ( 2024 ) Cite this article
To better target stroke awareness efforts (pre and post first stroke) and thereby decrease the time window for help-seeking, this study aims to assess quantitatively whether stroke awareness is associated with appropriate help-seeking at symptom onset, and to investigate qualitatively why this may (not) be the case.
This study conducted in a German regional stroke network comprises a convergent quantitative-dominant, hypothesis-driven mixed methods design including 462 quantitative patient questionnaires combined with qualitative interviews with 28 patients and seven relatives. Quantitative associations were identified using Pearson’s correlation analysis. Open coding was performed on interview transcripts before the quantitative results were used to further focus qualitative analysis. Joint display analysis was conducted to mix data strands. Cooperation with the Patient Council of the Department of Neurology ensured patient involvement in the study.
Our hypothesis that stroke awareness would be associated with appropriate help-seeking behaviour at stroke symptom onset was partially supported by the quantitative data, i.e. showing associations between some dimensions of stroke awareness and appropriate help-seeking, but not others. For example, knowing stroke symptoms is correlated with recognising one’s own symptoms as stroke ( r = 0.101; p = 0.030*; N = 459) but not with no hesitation before calling help ( r = 0.003; p = 0.941; N = 457). A previous stroke also makes it more likely to recognise one’s own symptoms as stroke ( r = 0.114; p = 0.015*; N = 459), but not to be transported by emergency ambulance ( r = 0.08; p = 0.872; N = 462) or to arrive at the hospital on time ( r = 0.02; p = 0.677; N = 459). Qualitative results showed concordance, discordance or provided potential explanations for quantitative findings. For example, qualitative data showed processes of denial on the part of patients and the important role of relatives in initiating appropriate help-seeking behaviour on patients’ behalf.
Our study provides insights into the complexities of the decision-making process at stroke symptom onset. As our findings suggest processes of denial and inabilities to translate abstract disease knowledge into correct actions, we recommend to address relatives as potential saviours of loved ones, increased use of specific situational examples (e.g. lying on the bathroom floor) and the involvement of patient representatives in the preparation of informational resources and campaigns. Future research should include mixed methods research from one sample and more attention to potential reporting inconsistencies.
Peer Review reports
Acute ischemic stroke is one of the leading causes of death and acquired disability worldwide. Acute treatment options include stroke unit treatment, intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular thrombectomy (EVT), all with strongly time-dependent treatment effects. While institutional and regulatory efforts have addressed the time frames from emergency call to treatment initiation [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ], the time from symptom onset to first help-seeking is largely determined by decisions made by individual medical laypeople. Efforts for raising awareness of stroke are usually based on the assumption that increased stroke awareness will contribute to an increased likelihood of patients behaving correctly, and thereby an increased likelihood of timely treatment access.
However, a positive effect of these efforts has not been shown consistently [ 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. Moreover, evaluations use a wide range of outcome measures, including knowledge of risk factors, symptoms and treatments [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ], action taken [ 9 ], emergency department visits [ 8 ], thrombolysis rates [ 8 ], initiation of reperfusion therapy [ 15 ] or functional outcome at discharge [ 7 ] – all capturing different aspects of how well a person is informed about stroke, knows what to do or actually implements the recommended action. This means that it is not clear to what extent knowledge of stroke symptoms can actually predict good health outcomes, or whether timely presentation to emergency services can really be attributed to higher stroke awareness. Several qualitative studies have pointed out the complexity of the decision-making-process, which in addition to patient-specific factors, is also subject to outside influences [ 16 , 17 , 18 ].
This study aims to (1) assess quantitatively whether different aspects of stroke awareness were associated with appropriate help-seeking behaviour at stroke symptom onset, and to (2) investigate qualitatively why this may (not) have been the case. We expect our results to help inform outreach campaigns and awareness efforts to better reach its target groups and intended goals for improved stroke outcomes.
Mixed methods research design
This study used a convergent quantitative-dominant, hypothesis-driven mixed methods design including patient questionnaires and semi-structured interviews with patients and relatives (Fig. 1 ). The theoretical framework is informed by the COMIC Model, developed for the evaluation of complex care interventions, such as stroke care provision. It focuses on aspects beyond the medical (such as patient-centeredness) and specifically considers the context in which an intervention is implemented, as needed for the current study [ 19 ]. The study was conducted in a German regional stroke network (FAST; www.fast-schlaganfall.de ). Ethics approval was obtained from the Medical Faculty of Heidelberg University (S-306/2016; S-682/2017). All study participants provided written informed consent. We report our findings in line with applicable standards [ 20 ].
The mixed methods integration strategy was to compare (especially regarding patient data) and to expand (especially regarding relative data) [ 21 ]. The mixed methods research data inventory [ 21 ] is shown in Table 1 . We hypothesised that stroke awareness would be associated with appropriate help-seeking behaviour at stroke symptom onset. We defined “stroke awareness” as having information about stroke before the stroke occurred using the concepts “knowing stroke symptoms”, “familiarity with information campaigns”, “having experienced one or more previous strokes” and “knowing other stroke patients” or “having discussed stroke symptoms with other stroke patients”. We defined appropriate help-seeking as responding to a suspected stroke by seeking the appropriate help immediately upon symptom onset, measured using the concepts “recognising the symptoms as stroke”, “no hesitation before calling for help”, “transportation to hospital by emergency ambulance”, and “arrival at hospital within the 4.5 h therapeutic time window”. For mixing of data strands, we conducted a joint display analysis to assess for “fit” and draw meta-inferences according to the categories of concordance, expansion, complementarity or discordance of quantitative and qualitative findings which are addressed in the Discussion [ 22 , 23 ].
Quantitative and qualitative data were collected separately. The quantitative data collection consisted of a questionnaire for patients admitted with acute stroke at an urban university hospital or a rural primary stroke center. Patients were recruited consecutively over a period of 6 months, starting in January 2017. The questionnaires were completed on the day after admission by the patients and their treating physician. Quantitative data were analysed using standard descriptive statistics. Associations were identified using Pearson’s correlation analysis. More detailed information on the quantitative questionnaire is published elsewhere [ 26 ].
For the qualitative data collection, semi-structured interviews were conducted with stroke patients and their relatives. A purposive sampling strategy was used to include interviewees with different stroke pathway experiences such as different transfer modes (helicopter or ambulance), admission at more or less specialised hospitals as well as different health outcomes. Recruitment and data collection place from May to July 2018 at Heidelberg University hospital and from July to September 2019 at two primary stroke centers. Interviews were conducted in German, approximately one month after stroke. The interview guide was piloted in advance with members of a regional stroke self-help group. For qualitative intra-method analysis, interview transcripts were coded by at least two researchers using MaxQDA-software (2018, VERBI, Berlin, Germany). After coding of all transcripts was completed, the quantitative results were used to focus the qualitative analysis on the aspects of stroke awareness and help-seeking behaviour as outlined for the questionnaires.
More detailed information on the respective methods of data collection and intra-method data analysis are shown in Table 2 .
A stroke self-help group consulted on the qualitative design and helped pilot the interviews. Stakeholder validation of preliminary results was conducted with the Patient Council of the Department of Neurology on 17 November 2020, which showed agreement with findings outside the study sample and provided insights into discordance between quantitative and qualitative findings (see Discussion).
In total, 462 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Median age was 71.5 years (IQR: 60–79) and 47.4% of patients were female. Median premorbid Rankin scale (pmRS) was 0 (0–2). Other baseline characeristics including primary admission hospital, health status and risk factors are reported in Table 3 .
Summary of main findings
We conducted 35 interviews, including 28 patient interviews and seven relative interviews. In 8 of the patient interviews, a relative was also present and occasionally participated. The interviews lasted between 20 and 82 min (median: 47 min, IQR: 32–59). Eleven patients were female (39%), and median age was 66 years (IQR: 60–78). Most patients had no prestroke disabilities as indicated by a pmRS of 0 (IQR 0–1). The mean NIHSS at admission was 8.7 (SD 7.7), indicating that most patients had not experienced a severe stroke. The primary admission hospital of eleven patients was an EVT-capable hospital; whereas the others were admitted at an IVT-capable hospital. Mean NIHSS at discharge was 2.6 (SD 2.6) while median mRS at discharge was 2 (IQR 1–3), showing a relatively good outcome after stroke. Of the seven relatives, six were female, and median age was 58, ranging from 23 to 72 years.
Main findings are summarised in an integrated visual display in Fig. 2 . This includes statistical results as well as qualitative interview quotes.
Questionnaires showed a positive correlation between knowing stroke symptoms and recognising symptoms as stroke ( N = 459; r = 0.101; p = 0.030*) and arrival at hospital within 4.5 h ( N = 459; r = 0.093; p = 0.046*), but not with no hesitation before calling for help ( N = 457; r = 0.003; p = 0,941) and transportation by emergency ambulance ( N = 462; r = 0.014; p = 0.764).
Five patient interviewees reported immediately knowing or strongly suspecting that they experienced a stroke. One recognized the stroke when he felt a sudden, strong stab of pain in the head and could not hold a water bottle. The other patient recognised the stroke when she saw her drooping cheek in the mirror. Of the five patients who recognized their stroke, four patients immediately called an ambulance or told their spouse to do so. The fifth patient was alone at home and could not physically react appropriately.
In contrast, eight patients who consciously experienced their symptoms stated that they had no idea it was a stroke, e.g. specifying that “[it] was the last thing [he] would have thought of” (Patient, Interview 12). These patients reported slurred speech, not being able to speak or answer questions, not being able to sit/stand/get up or walk (properly), not being able to use their leg(s), lying on the floor, and not being able to use their arm or hand (including dropping things). Another patient specified that even though she was aware of common stroke symptoms, she did not recognise them in her own case.
I know this thing , that you hold up both arms. But for myself , it would never have crossed my mind . Patient , Interview 1
She and another patient emphasised that even though they consciously experienced one or more symptoms, they did not feel that something was wrong.
I thought I had got up to go to the bathroom. I didn’t even wonder why I was on the floor. […] I just felt so comfortably sleepy and thought: Hm , why can’t I get up? Patient , Interview 1
Sometimes patients also initially attributed their symptoms to alternative explanations, i.e. an epileptic attack or hangover. Eight patients were unconscious or too confused to notice their symptoms or did not remember the situation. In these cases, other people called for help on their behalf. Twelve relatives present at symptom onset immediately knew or strongly suspected a stroke based on the symptoms, which included slurred speech, drooping mouth, not being able to speak, paresis, not being able to get up or walk properly, a cramped-up hand, and tingling feelings in one arm.
All relatives suspecting a stroke immediately called for help without waiting for the symptoms to improve or otherwise delaying the process.
I saw that something was wrong with [her] mouth and that’s when I knew it was a stroke . Relative , Interview 6 .
Questionnaires showed a positive correlation between familiarity with stroke information campaigns and recognising symptoms as stroke ( r = 0.203; p ≤ 0.001*; N = 457) but no correlation with no hesitation before calling for help ( r = 0.009; p = 0.847; N = 456), transportation by emergency ambulance ( r = 0.046; p = 0.323; N = 460), and arrival at hospital within 4.5 h ( r = 0.014; p = 0.769; N = 457).
In the interviews, patients were asked about their prior knowledge about the disease stroke and if so, their information sources. Twelve patients indicated that they had had prior information about the disease stroke, naming information sources such as television shows, books and magazines on health topics, knowing other stroke patients, medical conditions because of which they had been told they were at risk for stroke, a previous (own) stroke, and working or volunteering in health care. Of these patients, two patients reported having recognised their stroke, both immediately asking their husbands to call help. Stroke information campaigns were not mentioned by the interviewees.
Many patients who answered “no” to the question “Did you have any prior information about the disease stroke?”, also reported knowing other stroke patients or having discussed their stroke risk or suspected stroke symptoms with a health professional in the months or years before their stroke. Two patients reported actively avoiding information on the topic
When I saw those news articles , I did not read them. […] I skipped them. […] I did not want to know about that. […] I had the feeling […] that I wanted nothing to do with it. Patient , Interview 9 When there was information on TV , I often switched channels. I can’t watch it […] , it upsets me too much. Patient , Interview 34
The latter patient is one of two patients who, despite indicating no prior information about stroke, recognized their stroke at symptom onset. The other patient reported that because of his regular check-up appointments for heart disease he was aware of his stroke risk. The patient was alone at home when the stroke happened but was found by a neighbour who immediately called an ambulance.
Only few patients who indicated having no prior information about stroke also reported not knowing any stroke patients and not having been aware that they were at risk of stroke. In these cases, it was the patient’s partner who initiated help-seeking. In one case, the patient’s wife called an ambulance because of the severity of the symptoms even though she did not realise it was a stroke at the time.
Nine relatives present at symptom onset said they had prior information about stroke, also citing television shows and books on health topics, knowing other stroke patients, the patient’s previous stroke, and volunteering in health care as their main information sources .
Speaking to patient: I saved you. Because I know […]. I do read a lot , and I watch [shows] on TV Relative , Interview 33
All of these relatives recognised the patient’s stroke based on their symptoms and sought help immediately.
Questionnaire data for having experienced one or more previous strokes showed a positive correlation with recognising symptoms as stroke ( r = 0.114; p = 0.015*; N = 459) but no correlation with no hesitation before calling for help ( r = 0.027; p = 0.565; N = 457), transportation by emergency ambulance ( r = 0.008; p = 0.872; N = 462), and arrival at hospital within 4.5 h ( r = 0.02; p = 0.677; N = 459).
In the qualitative patient sample, four patients had previously experienced a stroke. None of them recognised their second stroke, with two unconscious at symptom onset or unable to recall the situation later. In two cases, patients knew that a stroke had been discovered previously during a routine scan, but they had not been aware of it when it happened (so-called “silent infarctions”). A third patient had experienced his first stroke just a few weeks prior to his second while he was still in rehabilitation for the first. A fourth patient had experienced an acute stroke two years previously. This latter patient did not seem to (want to) realise that this would put him at risk for another stroke:
Interviewer: “Were you aware that having had a previous stroke would put you at risk for another one?” Interviewee: I thought it’s enough now. I […] suppressed it , [put it] out of my mind […]. I thought it would be over now. Patient , Interview 9
In one of the above cases, Patient 9’s wife recognized the stroke and alerted emergency services immediately. In the other cases, no relatives were present and emergency services were instead alerted by unrelated witnesses. A fifth case of a previous stroke was reported by the daughter of a stroke patient who was herself not included in this study. This patient had experienced a severe acute stroke approximately twelve years previously. The daughter reported this as the reason why she recognized her mother’s second stroke and called for help immediately:
She had major speech problems after her first stroke […]. And [this time] I noticed the exact same thing. […] I said: it’s a stroke again. Relative , Interview 24
Questionnaires showed no correlation between knowing other stroke patients and recognising symptoms as stroke ( r = 0.082; p = 0.081; N = 455), no hesitation before calling for help ( r = 0.031; p = 0.514; N = 453), transportation by emergency ambulance ( r = 0.052; p = 0.264; N = 458), and arrival at hospital within 4.5 h ( r = 0.052; p = 0.272; N = 455). For those patients who did know other stroke patients and who reported having discussed stroke symptoms with them, a positive correlation was found with recognising symptoms as stroke ( r = 0.152; p = 0.026*; N = 215), and arrival at hospital within 4.5 h ( r = 0.230; p = 0.001*; N = 217) but not with no hesitation before calling for help ( r = 0.045; p = 0.506; N = 216) and transportation by emergency ambulance ( r = 0.037; p = 0.588; N = 217).
In the interviews, thirteen patients reported knowing other stroke patients before, mostly family members and friends, but also colleagues, neighbours and acquaintances. Of these, two patients had recognised their own stroke and called for help immediately. One spoke in detail about her son-in-law’s stroke and thrombectomy treatment as well as the stroke experience of a friend, stating this as the reason “[…] why [she and her husband] had known about stroke since then and also knew about the time window” (Patient , Interview 7) . This was not the case for the other patient who first reported no prior information about stroke before mentioning that his mother had had one at a much older age:
Interviewer: Did you have general prior information about the disease stroke? Interviewee: No. […] Well , [my] mother had a stroke at [88]. Of course , I was aware of that. But , well , riding your motorcycle at [57] , you don’t think about a stroke Patient , Interview 25
A similar pattern was also visibile with other interviewees, who initially responded that they did not know other stroke patients before realising that this was not the case. Nine patients specifically stated that they did not know other stroke patients before their own stroke. Of these, three patients were able to recognise their own stroke, however citing other information sources such as check-ups for heart disease, working in health care, and TV programs.
Seven relatives present at symptom onset reported knowing other stroke patients, with several identifying this as the reason why they recognised their spouse’s stroke and responded appropriately.
We reacted immediately […] because several people in our family already had a stroke , so I know the symptoms. Relative , Interview 29
We explored patients’ and relatives’ help-seeking behaviour at stroke symptom onset using quantitative questionnaires and qualitative interviews. Our hypothesis that having stroke awareness would be positively associated with appropriate help-seeking behaviour was partially supported by quantitative and qualitative data, which confirmed and contradicted each other and sometimes provided potential explanations for apparent inconsistencies, as we discuss below.
Qualitative findings around the impact of knowing stroke symptoms were found to be partially in discordance with quantitative findings. Specifically, questionnaires showed patients with knowledge of stroke symptoms to be more likely to recognise their symptoms as stroke and to arrive at hospital on time. In contrast, interviews showed many patients to not have recognized their symptoms as stroke, even when they knew of common stroke symptoms. Two patients explained that they did not feel ill and even that they felt comfortable. This was confirmed by a former stroke patient in the Patient Council who reported not linking their general knowledge to their acute experience and inexplicably feeling safe and seeing everything through rose-tinted glasses. While the literature shows that lack of pain or perceived symptom severity can contribute to a diminished feeling of urgency, we were not able to find published descriptions of these feelings of comfort or safety [ 16 , 27 , 28 , 29 ].
Regarding the importance of familiarity with information campaigns , our qualitative and quantitative findings complemented each other. While questionnaires showed that patients familiar with campaigns were more likely to recognise their stroke, interviewed patients reported other information sources. Findings from the published literature show a variety of results in terms the impact of stroke information campaigns, e.g. reporting (partial) effectiveness [ 7 , 8 , 10 ] but also rather limited impact [ 6 , 9 ]. Notably, in our study, patient reporting of prior stroke information sometimes appeared inconsistent, e.g. when patients later spoke about a relative with stroke. This suggests that patients have better recall of some types of information than others [ 28 ]. It may also be suggestive of individual patient characteristics contributing to avoidance behaviour. Moloczij et al. called this the desire to “[maintain] a sense of normalcy”, describing several strategies used by patients to support their decision not to take any action, including denial, minimisation of symptoms, and compensating or adapting [ 16 ]. Wang et al. use descriptors such as “hesitating and puzzling” and “doubting – it may only be a minor problem” to describe this process experienced by stroke patients before initiating help-seeking [ 30 ].
Partial discordance was also found for previous strokes . While questionnaires showed patients with one or more previous strokes more likely to recognise their current symptoms as stroke, none of the five patients in the qualitative sample had recognised their current stroke. In their literature review of factors influence prehospital delay and stroke knowledge, Teuschl and Brainin (2010) find that only few studies report shorter time delays or better stroke knowledge in persons having suffered a previous stroke [ 27 ]. While silent (previous) infarctions may explain some of these instances, one patient who actively experienced their previous stroke reported avoidance behaviour before the second stroke. This was also reflected in Mackintosh et al.’s study of why people do (not) immediately contact emergency services, including several patients who recognised their second stroke but did not take action [ 28 ]. This observation was discussed in the Patient Council whose patient representatives showed surprise at the apparent lack of impact of previous stroke experiences. It was discussed whether stroke patients may not perceive themselves as living with a long-term condition requiring ongoing vigilance, but instead an isolated and completed incident.
Finally, qualitative and quantitative data were found to overlap and expand each other for knowing other stroke patients and having discussed the disease stroke . Interviews provided additional insights into possible reasons for when patients did not relate to others’ experiences and showed the importance of relatives knowing other stroke patients. Questionnaires showed no significant associations between knowing other stroke patients and the four dimensions of appropriate help-seeking behaviour, but patients who had discussed symptoms with other stroke patients were found to be more likely to recognise their stroke and to arrive at hospital on time. Again, there appeared to be inconsistencies in the interviews, with patients forgetting and then remembering knowing someone with stroke, and with many patients not relating others’ stroke experiences to their own situation. In contrast, several relatives identified knowing other stroke patients as the specific reason why they recognized the patient’s stroke and knew how to react. The importance of bystander involvement was explored by Mellon et al., identifying symptom recognition and help-seeking by witnesses as critical for a fast response [ 31 ]. For instance, Geffner et al. found that the decision to seek medical help was taken by patients in only 20.4% of cases [ 32 ]. Iverson et al. also found the presence of a bystander at symptom onset to be associated with appropriate help-seeking [ 15 ]. However, other qualitative findings are more nuanced, e.g. with Mc Sharry et al. reporting actions taken by others as having the potential to override patients’ own identification of symptoms and Moloczij et al. finding that sometimes the presence of another person contributed to delayed help-seeking, while at other times facilitating contact with medical services [ 16 , 29 ]. In addition to patients’ and relatives’ own behaviour and decisions, studies also show the importance of system factors, such as inefficient pre-hospital triage for treatment delay [ 33 ].
As data collection was prepared and conducted independently, it was not always perfectly matched. One example of this is the fact that the rural-urban divide was not considered in detail in the qualitative data collection. This means that potentially important qualitative explanations of quantitative findings related to rural vs. urban differences were not explored in the current study, such as potential differences in information access, transport time or time-to-access to emergency services. Moreover, as is appropriate for qualitative interviews, prompting for more detailed information depended on the specific context and was therefore not feasible for all interviewees and all sub-questions. In the questionnaires, patients were asked about prior knowledge of stroke systems after they had their stroke. However, since it was completed on the day itself or day one after treatment, there would not have been much time for extended patient education. Additionally, the quantitative questionnaire was analysed with a pre-defined analysis plan and was collected over a (pre-defined) time period of six months. However, no power or sensitivity analysis was conducted in advance. Finally, our qualitative sample showed very good recovery, which probably affected the range of experiences and reactions covered in the interviews. One might assume that this overrepresentation of good outcomes could suggest a similar overrepresentation of study participants who “acted correctly”. However, given the importance of luck, bystander help, patients’ physical incapability to react and additional factors other than informed decision-making reported in this study, our results indicate that caution is warranted when interpreting good outcomes or arrival inside the time-window as proxies for having acted quickly or correctly (and vice versa). The main strengths of this study are its two-site design covering hospitals in urban and rural areas with differences in acute stroke treatment options, ensuring good external validity for Germany and countries covering larger geographical areas, its mixed methods approach allowing for integration of findings and generation of new perspectives of inquiry, and the involvement of patient representatives in the study preparation and conclusion.
As quantitative and qualitative findings sometimes seemed contradictory, we recommend that future studies collect data from one patient sample (instead of two separate samples, as here), allowing for direct back-and-forth iterations.As qualitative interviews pointed towards relevant inconsistencies in patient reporting, e.g. of prior stroke knowledge even with regard to close family members, it might be worth re-examining the reliability of common quantitative measures of stroke awareness and help-seeking behaviour where these inconsistencies would remain hidden and potentially incorrect. Following the Patient Council discussions, future research may investigate the “comfortable lull” reported by two patients from the study sample and one patient from the Council. If found in more instances, this could contribute to patients not recognizing a situation as highly problematic and requiring urgent action. In terms of practice recommendations, a more family- or community-based approach to stroke information provision may be helpful, emphasising the opportunity to be a loved one’s saviour. This could lessen the impact of avoidance behaviour and increase the positive impact of the presence of a family member on the decision-making process. This may necessitate critical discussions of whether and how relatives should be able to override patient preferences for delayed or no help-seeking behaviour, especially when the patient’s capacity for decision-making is impaired. As many patients seemed unable to apply general knowledge of stroke symptoms in the acute situation, we suggest exploring an example-based approach to risk communication. Specific situational examples (e.g. lying on the floor in the middle of the night or falling down without knowing why) may be a more accessible source of information compared to paresis of the arms or legs. To provide this type of information in the most appropriate way to future patients and their relatives, it seems relevant to involve former stroke patients in the preparation and provision of these informational resources.
Our study provides insights into the complexity of a decision-making process that is influenced by certain factors, but not others – e.g. a previous stroke makes it more likely that a patient recognises their symptoms as stroke, but not that they call for help without hesitation or arrive at the hospital on time. Interviews with patients and relatives provided in-depth insights into these seemingly contradictory findings, e.g. suggesting processes of denial or the inability to translate abstract knowledge into correct actions. We therefore recommend to address relatives as potential saviours of loved ones, increased use of specific situational examples (e.g. lying on the bathroom floor) and the involvement of patient representatives in the preparation of informational resources and campaigns.
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. This excludes interview transcripts as ethics requirements to ensure confidentiality do not allow for data sharing outside the research team.
Schönenberger S, Weber D, Ungerer MN, Pfaff J, Schieber S, Uhlmann L, et al. The KEEP SIMPLEST Study: improving In-House delays and Periinterventional Management in Stroke Thrombectomy-A Matched Pair Analysis. Neurocrit Care. 2019;31(1):46–55.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Wu TY, Coleman E, Wright SL, Mason DF, Reimers J, Duncan R, et al. Helsinki Stroke Model is transferrable with Real-World resources and reduced stroke Thrombolysis Delay to 34 min in Christchurch. Front Neurol. 2018;9:290.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Meretoja A, Weir L, Ugalde M, Yassi N, Yan B, Hand P, et al. Helsinki model cut stroke thrombolysis delays to 25 minutes in Melbourne in only 4 months. Neurology. 2013;81(12):1071–6.
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Willeit J, Geley T, Schöch J, Rinner H, Tür A, Kreuzer H, et al. Thrombolysis and clinical outcome in patients with stroke after implementation of the Tyrol Stroke pathway: a retrospective observational study. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14(1):48–56.
Ebinger M, Winter B, Wendt M, Weber JE, Waldschmidt C, Rozanski M, et al. Effect of the use of ambulance-based thrombolysis on time to thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;311(16):1622–31.
Morrow A, Miller CB, Dombrowski SU. Can people apply ‘FAST’ when it really matters? A qualitative study guided by the common sense self-regulation model. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):643.
Rasura M, Baldereschi M, Di Carlo A, Di Lisi F, Patella R, Piccardi B, et al. Effectiveness of public stroke educational interventions: a review. Eur J Neurol. 2014;21(1):11–20.
Flynn D, Ford GA, Rodgers H, Price C, Steen N, Thomson RG. A time series evaluation of the FAST National Stroke awareness campaign in England. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(8):e104289.
Wolters FJ, Li L, Gutnikov SA, Mehta Z, Rothwell PM. Medical attention seeking after transient ischemic attack and minor stroke before and after the UK Face, Arm, Speech, Time (FAST) Public Education campaign: results from the Oxford Vascular Study. JAMA Neurol. 2018;75(10):1225–33.
Nordanstig A, Asplund K, Norrving B, Wahlgren N, Wester P, Rosengren L. Impact of the Swedish National Stroke Campaign on stroke awareness. Acta Neurol Scand. 2017;136(4):345–51.
Metias MM, Eisenberg N, Clemente MD, Wooster EM, Dueck AD, Wooster DL, et al. Public health campaigns and their effect on stroke knowledge in a high-risk urban population: a five-year study. Vascular. 2017;25(5):497–503.
Bray JE, O’Connell B, Gilligan A, Livingston PM, Bladin C. Is FAST stroke smart? Do the content and language used in awareness campaigns describe the experience of stroke symptoms? Int J Stroke: Official J Int Stroke Soc. 2010;5(6):440–6.
Article Google Scholar
Hartigan I, O’Connell E, O’Brien S, Weathers E, Cornally N, Kilonzo B, et al. The Irish national stroke awareness campaign: a stroke of success? Appl Nurs Research: ANR. 2014;27(4):e13–9.
Kraywinkel K, Heidrich J, Heuschmann PU, Wagner M, Berger K. Stroke risk perception among participants of a stroke awareness campaign. BMC Public Health. 2007;7:39.
Iversen AB, Blauenfeldt RA, Johnsen SP, Sandal BF, Christensen B, Andersen G, et al. Understanding the seriousness of a stroke is essential for appropriate help-seeking and early arrival at a stroke centre: a cross-sectional study of stroke patients and their bystanders. Eur Stroke J. 2020;5(4):351–61.
Moloczij N, McPherson KM, Smith JF, Kayes NM. Help-seeking at the time of stroke: stroke survivors’ perspectives on their decisions. Health Soc Care Commun. 2008;16(5):501–10.
Zock E, Kerkhoff H, Kleyweg RP, van de Beek D. Intrinsic factors influencing help-seeking behaviour in an acute stroke situation. Acta Neurol Belgica. 2016;116(3):295–301.
Zock E, Kerkhoff H, Kleyweg RP, van Bavel-Ta TBV, Scott S, Kruyt ND, et al. Help seeking behavior and onset-to-alarm time in patients with acute stroke: sub-study of the preventive antibiotics in stroke study. BMC Neurol. 2016;16(1):241.
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Busetto L, Luijkx K, Vrijhoef HJM. Development of the COMIC Model for the comprehensive evaluation of integrated care interventions. Int J Care Coord. 2016;19(1–2):47–58.
Google Scholar
Levitt HM, Bamberg M, Creswell JW, Frost DM, Josselson R, Suárez-Orozco C. Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: the APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. Am Psychol. 2018;73(1):26–46.
Fetters MD. The mixed methods research workbook: activities for designing. implementing, and publishing projects: SAGE; 2019.
Fetters MD, Curry LA, Creswell JW. Achieving integration in mixed methods designs-principles and practices. Health Serv Res. 2013;48(6 Pt 2):2134–56.
Moseholm E, Rydahl-Hansen S, Lindhardt BØ, Fetters MD. Health-related quality of life in patients with serious non-specific symptoms undergoing evaluation for possible cancer and their experience during the process: a mixed methods study. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(4):993–1006.
Busetto L, Sert M, Herzog F, Hoffmann J, Stang C, Amiri H, et al. But it’s a nice compromise - qualitative multi-center study of barriers and facilitators to acute telestroke cooperation in a regional stroke network. Eur J Neurol. 2021;n/a(n/a):1–9.
Busetto L, Stang C, Hoffmann J, Amiri H, Seker F, Purrucker J, et al. Patient-centredness in acute stroke care – a qualitative study from the perspectives of patients, relatives and staff. Eur J Neurol. 2020;27(8):1638–46.
Ungerer MN, Busetto L, Begli NH, Riehle K, Regula J, Gumbinger C. Factors affecting prehospital delay in rural and urban patients with stroke: a prospective survey-based study in Southwest Germany. BMC Neurol. 2020;20(1):441.
Teuschl Y, Brainin M. Stroke education: discrepancies among factors influencing prehospital delay and stroke knowledge. Int J Stroke: Official J Int Stroke Soc. 2010;5(3):187–208.
Mackintosh JE, Murtagh MJ, Rodgers H, Thomson RG, Ford GA, White M. Why people do, or do not, Immediately Contact Emergency Medical Services following the onset of Acute Stroke: qualitative interview study. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(10):e46124.
Mc Sharry J, Baxter A, Wallace LM, Kenton A, Turner A, French DP. Delay in seeking medical help following transient ischemic attack (TIA) or mini-stroke: a qualitative study. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(8):e104434.
Wang PY, Tsao LI, Chen YW, Lo YT, Sun HL. Hesitating and puzzling: the experiences and decision process of Acute ischemic stroke patients with Prehospital Delay after the onset of symptoms. Healthc (Basel). 2021;9(8):1061. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9081061 . PMID: 34442198; PMCID: PMC8391298.
Mellon L, Doyle F, Williams D, Brewer L, Hall P, Hickey A. Patient behaviour at the time of stroke onset: a cross-sectional survey of patient response to stroke symptoms. Emerg Med J. 2016;33(6):396–402.
Geffner D, Soriano C, Pérez T, Vilar C, Rodríguez D. Delay in seeking treatment by patients with stroke: who decides, where they go, and how long it takes. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2012;114(1):21–5. Epub 2011 Sep 23. PMID: 21944574.
Iversen AB, Johnsen SP, Blauenfeldt RA, Gude MF, Dalby RB, Christensen B, Andersen G, Christensen MB. Help-seeking behaviour and subsequent patient and system delays in stroke. Acta Neurol Scand. 2021;144(5):524–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.13484 . Epub 2021 Jun 14. PMID: 34124770.
Download references
The authors thank all study participants for their participation and valuable contribution to this study. For the publication fee, we acknowledge financial support by Heidelberg University.
There was not external funding for this study.
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Matthias Ungerer and Christoph Gumbinger contributed equally to this work.
Department of Neurology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
Loraine Busetto, Christina Stang, Melek Sert, Johanna Hoffmann, Jan Purrucker, Wolfgang Wick, Matthias Ungerer & Christoph Gumbinger
Institute of Medical Virology, Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital, Paul-Ehrlich-Str. 40, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Loraine Busetto
Department of Paraplegia, Heidelberg University Hospital, Schlierbacher Landstraße 200a, 69118, Heidelberg, Germany
Franziska Herzog
Department of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
Fatih Seker & Martin Bendszus
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
LB drafted the manuscript, conceptualised the overall mixed methods study design, and was responsible for the qualitative study design including qualitative data collection and analysis. CS, FH, MS and JH conducted the qualitative interviews and contributed significantly to qualitative data analysis. JP, FS, MB and WW provided medical expertise, contributed to quantitative analysis and revised the manuscript. MU conducted the quantitative analysis and contributed to the mixed methods analysis. CG had a supervisory role, contributed significantly to quantitative analysis and mixed methods design and analysis and relevantly revised different manuscript versions.
Correspondence to Loraine Busetto .
Ethics approval and consent to participate.
Ethics approval was obtained from the ethics committee of the Medical Faculty of Heidelberg University (S-306/2016; S-682/2017). All study participants provided written informed consent.
Not applicable.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Reprints and permissions
Cite this article.
Busetto, L., Stang, C., Herzog, F. et al. “I didn’t even wonder why I was on the floor” – mixed methods exploration of stroke awareness and help-seeking behaviour at stroke symptom onset. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 880 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11276-6
Download citation
Received : 23 February 2024
Accepted : 03 July 2024
Published : 02 August 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11276-6
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
ISSN: 1472-6963
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
The purpose of case study research is twofold: (1) to provide descriptive information and (2) to suggest theoretical relevance. Rich description enables an in-depth or sharpened understanding of the case. It is unique given one characteristic: case studies draw from more than one data source. Case studies are inherently multimodal or mixed ...
A case study is a detailed study of a specific subject, such as a person, group, place, event, organization, or phenomenon. Case studies are commonly used in social, educational, clinical, and business research. A case study research design usually involves qualitative methods, but quantitative methods are sometimes also used.
A case study is one of the most commonly used methodologies of social research. This article attempts to look into the various dimensions of a case study research strategy, the different epistemological strands which determine the particular case study type and approach adopted in the field, discusses the factors which can enhance the effectiveness of a case study research, and the debate ...
A Case study is: An in-depth research design that primarily uses a qualitative methodology but sometimes includes quantitative methodology. Used to examine an identifiable problem confirmed through research. Used to investigate an individual, group of people, organization, or event. Used to mostly answer "how" and "why" questions.
Case study method is the most widely used method in academia for researchers interested in qualitative research (Baskarada, 2014).Research students select the case study as a method without understanding array of factors that can affect the outcome of their research.
When collecting and analyzing data, quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings. Both are important for gaining different kinds of knowledge. Quantitative research. Quantitative research is expressed in numbers and graphs. It is used to test or confirm theories and assumptions.
What is a case study? 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.
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.
When you look at lists of most-read and most-cited articles you will find that this flexible approach is widely used and published. Here are some open-access articles about multimodal qualitative or mixed methods designs that include both qualitative and quantitative elements. Qualitative Research with Case Studies. Brannen, J., & Nilsen, A ...
Case study research is defined as a qualitative approach in which the investigator explores a real-life, contemporary bounded system (a case) or multiple bound systems (cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information, and reports a case description and case themes.
The main difference between quantitative and qualitative research is the type of data they collect and analyze. ... focus groups, case study research, and ethnography. The results of qualitative methods provide a deep understanding of how people perceive their social realities and in consequence, how they act within the social world. ...
Below I identify different ways in which case study is used before focusing on qualitative case study research in particular. However, first I wish to indicate how I came to advocate and practice this form of research. ... in effect, by a psychometric view of research in which quantitative methods were preeminent. But the innovative projects we ...
Definitions of qualitative case study research. Case study research is an investigation and analysis of a single or collective case, intended to capture the complexity of the object of study (Stake, 1995).Qualitative case study research, as described by Stake (), draws together "naturalistic, holistic, ethnographic, phenomenological, and biographic research methods" in a bricoleur design ...
McMaster University, West Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Qualitative case study methodology prov ides tools for researchers to study. complex phenomena within their contexts. When the approach is ...
Qualitative research is a type of scientific research where a researcher collects evidence to seek answers to a question. It is associated with studying human behavior from an informative perspective. It aims at obtaining in-depth details of the problem. As the term suggests, qualitative research is based on qualitative research methods ...
Additionally, case studies can be qualitative and/or quantitative. It is quite likely, as Stake (1994) points out, that researchers doing case study research are calling it by another name. Case studies, as a research design, are also being conducted across disciplines and research traditions.
Abstract. This article presents the case study as a type of qualitative research. Its aim is to give a detailed description of a case study - its definition, some classifications, and several ...
A case study is a detailed study of a specific subject, such as a person, group, place, event, organisation, or phenomenon. Case studies are commonly used in social, educational, clinical, and business research. A case study research design usually involves qualitative methods, but quantitative methods are sometimes also used.
Rather than by logical and statistical procedures, qualitative researchers use multiple systems of inquiry for the study of human phenomena including biography, case study, historical analysis, discourse analysis, ethnography, grounded theory, and phenomenology. University of Utah College of Nursing, (n.d.). What is qualitative research?
To conclude, there are two main objectives of this study. First is to provide a step-by-step guideline to research students for conducting case study. Second, an analysis of authors' multiple case studies is presented in order to provide an application of step-by-step guideline. This article has been divided into two sections.
The term "case study" refers to both a specific research design or methodology, and a method of analysis for examining a problem. Mills et al. ( 2010) note that case study, both as a methodology and as a method—unlike many qualitative methodologies—is frequently used to generalize across populations.
In general, quantitative research seeks to understand the causal or correlational relationship between variables through testing hypotheses, whereas qualitative research seeks to understand a phenomenon within a real-world context through the use of interviews and observation. Both types of research are valid, and certain research topics are better suited to one approach or the other.
The article then draws attention to two ambiguities in case-selection strategies in case-study research. The first concerns the admixture of several case-selection strategies. The second concerns the changing status of a case as a study proceeds. Some case studies follow only one strategy of case selection.
case study qualitative research explores a contemporary phenomenon within a specific context, bounded by time and activity. The primary goal of a case analysis is to understand and describe the phenomenon in a single, bounded context (Yin, 2014). The case study research was appropriate, since this study focused on the exploration of a real-
Efficiency: Quantitative research can be conducted relatively quickly and efficiently, especially when compared to qualitative research, which may involve lengthy data collection and analysis. Large sample sizes: Quantitative research can accommodate large sample sizes, which can increase the representativeness and generalizability of the results.
Mixed methods research design. This study used a convergent quantitative-dominant, hypothesis-driven mixed methods design including patient questionnaires and semi-structured interviews with patients and relatives (Fig. 1).The theoretical framework is informed by the COMIC Model, developed for the evaluation of complex care interventions, such as stroke care provision.