Case within a Case

Conceptual Overview and Discussion

The case study is a method for doing research that involves gaining an in-depth, longitudinal understanding of a single phenomenon of interest within its natural context as it occurs over time. This research strategy is excellent for providing realism but is often criticized for its lack of control. Indeed, control is rarely something that those who use the case method strive to attain because they usually follow a constructivist philosophy and tend to view activities as being interrelated and interacting but not necessarily causally deterministic.

Thus in case research the purpose is to describe a sequence of interrelated, contextually bound activities rather than a few well-isolated causal variables. However, while asserting causality for a few independent variables is not the goal, researchers do [Page 135]still seek the ability to abstract away from the details of the specific phenomenon to provide generalizable theoretical statements. This is where identifying multiple subcases within an overarching case becomes a useful tool.

Dividing a single case into a subset of smaller cases provides the opportunity to identify both similarities and differences across the subcases. What is gained from this form of analysis often serves as the foundation for the theoretical generalizations that are difficult to ascertain when examining only a single case. For example, when researchers are looking for similarities across cases they will often use the subcases as independent “natural experiments” in order to confirm or disconfirm emerging conceptual insights. In addition to identifying similarities across cases, researchers can also examine differences. Differences between cases are used to help the researcher identify “what did not happen” and can help to dispel “naturalizing myths.” Thus, rather than attempting to determine causal relationships across a few isolated variables, as is done in traditional variance-based approaches, differences between cases provide new ways of seeing and understanding how a given phenomenon may unfold in each of the subcases. Accordingly, dividing a single case into several meaningful subunits provides the structure that helps in making the elusive conceptual leap that is necessary to create theoretical generalizations.

In starting a casewithin-a-case study, it is first necessary to identify a bounded system. That is, as in a regular case study, researchers should start by identifying a phenomenon of interest and the boundaries that will delimit what will, and will not, be studied. When the boundaries have been defined, the next step is to identify the subcases for comparison. It is usual that between 4 and 10 subcases will be selected, a number small enough to allow in-depth study and understanding, but large enough to allow for meaningful comparison. The subcases, as the case itself, should be purposively selected on the basis of satisfying some pertinent theoretical criteria.

...