CASE STUDY METHOD

The case history method involves an intense description and analysis of a single person. A case

refers to any individual who displays a particular characteristic under consideration. As such,

case study relates to a detailed account of a single individual unit, eg, a student, a delinquent

clique, a family group, a class, a school, a community, an event, or even an entire group. It is

most often used in psychotherapy where a complete compilation of a person as far as it is

practicable is made. It is also used in the fields of clinical psychology and psychiatry and in

disciplines which are originally non-experimental in approach. Case studies often become the

bases for generalized theoretical principles.

A case study is both a process of inquiry about the case and the product of that inquiry.

Lawrence Stenhouse (1984) advocates calling the product a case record and practice of calling

the final report - a case study.

A case study should focus on a bounded subject/ unit that is either very representative or

extremely atypical. It is used to gain an in-depth understanding replete with meaning for the

subject, focusing on process rather than outcome, a discovery rather than confirmation. It must

involve the collection of very intensive (penetrative) data to produce understanding of the

entity being studied.

The case study is the preferred strategy when “how”, “why” or “what” questions are being

asked, or when the investigator has little control over events, or when the focus is on a

contemporary phenomenon within a real life context. In brief, the case study allows an

investigation to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real life events. The main

1
techniques used are observation (both participant and non-participant, depending on the case),

interviewing (unstructured and structured), psychological testing and document analysis

(archival records). Psychological tests enable to describe the standing of the person/ case in

relation to this group in which he belongs, and provide vital data regarding the case. Archival

records recount the activities of an individual, institution or other defined groups and also serve

as good source to describe a case intensely.

A case study occasionally describes the application and results of a particular treatment, eg,

when a new therapeutic technique is used to treat an emotionally disabled person. In a case

study, the focus of attention is on the case in its idiosyncratic complexity, not on the whole

population of cases. It is not something to be represented by an array of sources. The

researcher finds out what goes on within that complex-bounded system.

Many aspects of the case study method make it a unique means of studying behaviour. It

differs from more experimental approaches in terms of its goals, the methods used, and the

types of information obtained (Kazdin, 1980). The case study method is often characterized as

“exploratory” in nature and a source of hypotheses and ideas about behaviour (Bolgar, 1965).

Experimental approaches, on the other hand, are frequently viewed as opportunities to test

specific hypotheses. The case study method has sometimes been viewed as antagonistic to

more controlled methods of investigation. A more appropriate perspective is suggested by

Kazdin (1980) who considers the case study method as inter-related with and complementary

to other research methods in psychology.

2
Types of Case Studies

1. Oral history: These are usually first person narratives that the researcher collects using

extensive interviewing of a single individual.

Eg. development of a programme for deaf children as seen by a teacher closely associated

with the scheme.

2. Clinical case study: It aims to understand in depth a particular individual. It employs

detailed interviews, non-participant observation, documents, records and even testing,

with a view to understanding the problem and identifying possible treatments.

3. Multi-case study: It involves a collection of case studies. It is a form of replication, ie.,

multiple experiments.

4. Historical case studies: They trace the development of an organization/ system over

time. It depends heavily on records, documents and interviews.

5. Observational case studies: They focus often on a classroom, group, teacher or pupil,

often using a variety of observation and interview methods as their major tools. Case

study researchers are rarely total participants or total observers.

6. Situational analysis: Particular events are studied in this form of case study. Often the

views of all participants are sought as the event is the case. When all these views are

pooled together they provide a depth that can contribute significantly to the

understanding of the event. Interviews, documents and other records are the main

sources of data.

3
Advantages of Case Study

1. Sources of ideas about behaviour:

According to Bolgar (1965), the power of the case study method lies in its ability to open the

way for discoveries. It acts as a breeding ground for hypotheses that may subsequently be

pursued with more rigorous methodologies. The case study method is a natural starting point

for a researcher who is entering an area of study about which relatively little is known. In

Psychology, the development of psychoanalytic theory stands as a classic example of

hypothesis formation based on the case study method.

2. Opportunity for clinical innovation

The case study method provides an opportunity to try out new therapeutic techniques or to

attempt unique applications of existing techniques. In this way, it offers an opportunity for

clinical innovation. Information gained from one case study using a particular technique may

provide guidance to other therapists who use the same psychotherapeutic technique.

3. Method to study rare phenomena

Certain events appear so infrequently in nature that it is possible to describe them only through

the intensive study of single cases. Examples are found in the vivid case studies of so-called

feral children. These are children abandoned at an early stage who developed without

significant human contact while living in the wild. Among the most celebrated case studies of a

feral child is that of the “Wild boy of Aveyron” (Shattuck, 1994). Victor, as he came to be called,

was captured in 1800 in the Aveyron district of France. Someone might have tried to kill him (as

4
evidenced by the knife wound on his neck) and then abandoned him (perhaps had left him for

dead) in the woods when he was about five years old. When he was captured, at about age

eleven or twelve, he was human in bodily form and walked erect. Everything else about him

suggested an animal. He could not speak and made only weird meaningless cries (Shattuck,

1994).

To many researchers, Victor provides an opportunity to test what are burning hypotheses

about human nature. How are human beings different from animals? How do people learn

language? What is ‘natural’ and what is ‘cultural’? The story of Victor’s reintroduction to society

and his steps towards ‘humanity’ in no way provides definitive answers to such abstract

questions.

4. Challenge to theoretical assumptions

The case study method can often advance scientific thinking by providing a “counter-instance”-

a single case that violates a general proposition or universally accepted principle (Kazdin, 1980).

The theory that human language development depends on exposure to normal language during

a critical period from about two years of age to puberty may be considered at this juncture

(Lenneberg, 1967). In 1970, a child known as “Genie” was discovered who had been cruelly

isolated from most human contact and normal language from about the age of two to age

thirteen (Curtiss, 1977). The scientist who surrounded her saw an opportunity to observe the

results of a test of a critical period theory of language development.

According to the psychologist most closely associated with Genie’s language training, Genie

showed some language development but it was never completely normal. Thus, a weak version

5
of Lenneberg’s theory, namely, that normal language development would not appear after

puberty without exposure during the critical period “cannot be dismissed” by Genie’s case

study (Curtiss, 1977).

5. Tentative support for a psychological theory

Few researchers would accept results of a case study as conclusive evidence for a particular

hypothesis. The results for a case study is generally viewed as tentative and must await

investigation through more carefully controlled procedure before they are accepted by the

scientific community. However, the outcomes of a case study can sometimes provide important

evidence in support of a psychological theory. Eg., The content of the speech of a case, being

loaded with thoughts of hopelessness, pessimism and worthlessness may provide tentative

support for the presence of depressogenic schemes, and thereby support the concept of Beck’s

cognitive triad in depression.

6. Complement to the nomothetic study of behaviour

Psychology is largely a nomothetic discipline. This means that psychology seeks to establish

broad generalizations, “universal laws” that will apply to a wide population of organisms. As a

result, psychological research is often characterized by studies that involve large numbers of

subjects and seek to determine the “average” or typical performance of a group. This average

may or may not represent the value of any one individual in the group.

Some psychologists, notably Allport (1961), argue that a nomothetic approach is inadequate –

that the individual is more that what can be represented by the collection of average values on

6
various dimensions. Allport argues that the individual is both unique and lawful and that the

study of the individual, called idiographic research, is an important goal. Allport suggests that

our approach to understanding human nature should be neither exclusively nomothetic nor

exclusively idiographic but should represent an “equilibrium” between the two.

Disadvantages of the case study method

1. Difficulty of drawing cause-effect conclusions

One of the goals of science is to discover the causes of phenomena – to reveal in an

unambiguous manner the specific factors that produce a particular event. However, cause-

effect conclusions can rarely be drawn on the basis of results obtained from the case study

method. The major limitation of the case study method in this regard is its failure to control

extraneous variables.

2. Sources of bias in interpretation

The outcome of a case study often depends on interference drawn by a researcher who is both

participant and observer (Bolgar, 1965). A therapist is an observer but is also certainly a

participant in the therapeutic process. In the absence of independent measures, the outcome

of a case study may be based mainly on the ‘impressions’ of the observer. Interpretation of an

outcome solely on the basis of the subjective impressions of the observer can be seen as a

serious weakness in the case study method.

3. Possible biases in data collection

7
The material of a case study often includes several kinds of information, some of it obtained

from personal documents and psychological tests. Each of these sources of information must be

carefully examined for possible biases. Archival records, eg. are open to several sources of bias.

Further, when information is based on self-reports, there is always the possibility of distortion

or falsification. Reports of even the most intelligent individuals are susceptible to biases and

reconstructions, especially when memory for remote events is concerned.

4. Problem of generalizing from a single individual

As Bolgar (1965) puts it, “much of the criticisms leveled against the case study method of

research is based on the accepted canon that it is impossible to generalize from one case.” As

Kazdin (1980) notes, however, the ability to generalize from a single case depends on the

degree of variability in the population from which the case was selected. When significant

variability exists among individuals, as would be the case when measures are made of learning

and memory, emotionality or personality, it becomes impossible to claim that what is observed

in one individual will hold for all individuals.