Case Designs

  • Oddbjørn Bukve


In a case study, we study social phenomena in their real context. Also, we study the case as an instance of a larger class of events or cases. It is important to understand what constitutes the case in a case study and what class of phenomena it represents. A case study needs to be focused; that is, it must be oriented towards a specific type of research purpose, and it must have a focus that is relevant for the purpose. Further, the collection of data must be structured in such a way that the collected information can be used for theoretical interpretation of the case or be relevant for the development or testing of theories. In this chapter, I discuss in detail what these requirements involve, using them to introduce variants of case designs. Discussed are designs with critical cases, congruence designs, designs for process tracing, and designs for theoretical interpretative reconstruction.


  1. Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology. New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, S. S. (2013). Casestudier: forskningsstrategi, generalisering og forklaring. Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforl.Google Scholar
  3. Beach, D. (2016). It’s all about mechanisms – What process-tracing case studies should be tracing. New Political Economy, 1–10. Scholar
  4. Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2014). Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, A., & Checkel, J. T. (2015). Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory. American Sociological Review, 18(1), 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bukve, O. (1997). Kommunal forvaltning og planlegging (3. utg. ed.). Oslo: Samlaget.Google Scholar
  8. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eckstein, H. (1975). Case study and theory in political science. In F. Greenstein & N. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of political science. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  11. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? The American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–354. Scholar
  13. Gerring, J. (2006). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerring, J. (2007). Is there a (viable) crucial-case method? Comparative Political Studies, 40(3), 231–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  16. Gobo, G. (2008). Doing ethnography. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goertz, G. (2006). Social science concepts: A user’s guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Habermas, J. (1990). Reconstruction and interpretation in the social sciences. In Moral consciousness and communicative action (pp. 21–42). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kelle, U. (2007). “Emergence” vs. “Forcing” of empirical data? A crucial problem of “grounded theory” reconsidered. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung. Supplement, 133–156.Google Scholar
  20. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
  21. Levy, J. (2008). Case studies: Types, designs, and logics of inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25(1), 1–18. Scholar
  22. Mahoney, J. (2008). Toward a unified theory of causality. (Author abstract) (Report). Comparative Political Studies, 41(4–5), 412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morgan, G. (1998). Organisasjonsbilder: innføring i organisasjonsteori ([Ny utg.]. ed.). Oslo: Universitetsforl.Google Scholar
  24. Neset, O. (2012). Interkommunale samarbeid – kven er drivkreftene. (Master i organisasjon og leiing), Sogndal.Google Scholar
  25. Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science, 1(3), 267–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pettigrew, A. M. (1997). What is a processual analysis? Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(4), 337–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ragin, C. C., & Amoroso, L. M. (2011). Constructing social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  28. Rohlfing, I. (2013). Varieties of process tracing and ways to answer why-questions. European Political Science, 12(1), 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research. Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Zahariadis, N. (2007). The multiple streams framework. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 65–92). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oddbjørn Bukve
    • 1
  1. 1.Western Norway University of Applied SciencesSogndalNorway

Personalised recommendations