Case study: Establishing validity

Because they are single instances or pertain to a single person, case studies have limited
generalizability. There are ways to check that the information provided by the study is
reliable and valid.

Cross-verification

A description from a single observer should be regarded as

tentative. When three or four people independently provide similar
accounts, it seems more substantial. Cross-checking the accounts of
independent observers is one means of assessing reliability in a case
study. For example, a tornado victim may tell the researchers how
he tried to help other people after the twister struck. Other accounts
may indicate that the first individual was dazed and groggy and had
to be led to safety. Do not conclude that the first respondent is an
unreliable liar. Distortion becomes a topic of investigation. How
consistent are people's accounts of their own actions during and
after a calamity? We are led directly to a study of how people put
unwelcome thoughts out of their minds.

When doing a case study, do not challenge the respondent even when a account seems
biased or incorrect. You are not the district attorney conducting a cross examination. The
goal is to obtain the respondent's point of view. Verification comes afterward. You must
convey the impression of being a good listener. The respondents' knowledge that you have
access to neighbors, newspaper reports, and public records will keep them from straying too
far from the truth. Deliberate collusion among townspeople in concocting a false story is a
possibility, but does not occur often.

Differences among accounts may reflect the way each person saw the situation. The person
who spend several days in an evacuation camp after a tornado may have different view of
events that the person who stayed in town removing debris. Each of the views is accurate
but is based on a limited range of experience. Inconsistencies in people's narratives can
provide valuable leads. The researcher is a bit like the psychoanalyst who pays special
attention to distortions and omissions. Asking for further elaboration is a better way of
internally checking a story than challenging people as to their truthfulness or objectivity.

Cross-verification is also possible using a multimethod approach. Perhaps better than all
other techniques, the case study lends itself to the use of multiple sources and techniques
for gathering information. The validity of a case study is enhanced by using multiple
approaches and then integrating the information through a process
of triangulation or converging operations (coming at a problem from different
directions using independent research methods). Interviews are usually an intrinsic part of a
case study. Other useful techniques are observation, trace measures, and the analysis of
public and private records.

Observation
Systematic observation can be used to confirm information suggested by a case study. For
example, a case study of a child might be supplemented by systematic observation of its
behavior in the classroom, or in other setting. Participant observation can be used. Although
there can be problem in being objective, some researchers study organizations to which
they belong, and thus operate as participant observers [see module].

Public and private records

When a case report involves a newsworthy event, other records may be available. The
researchers who studied the koro epidemic found hospital records that documented earlier
occurrences of the condition. Secondary data sources may be available for shedding
additional light on the case under study. Archives such as census statistics, school district
records, crime reports, etc. may be relevant to a case study. Often, diaries are included as
part of a study of an individual. Or someone studying a natural disaster may compare diary
entries before and after the event. Other personal documents described in the personal
documents section may be useful.

Limitations

Even with cross verification, generalization from a case study is limited. Often an event is
selected because it is atypical (rare). No matter how many people were interviewed in
Guangdong, China, and no matter how much time was spent in the area by the research
team, it was only a single koro epidemic. It is appropriate to draw conclusions from the data
(e.g., the panic was brief in the vast majority of cases) but the findings cannot be
generalized to other koro outbreaks without further study.

Because so much depends on the researcher's personality and approach, a case study is
difficult to repeat. The situation of two researchers conducting independent case studies of
the same event is unlikely.

When case studies take place after the fact, the researcher must depend upon people's
recollections of events. After a crisis, memories are likely to be selective and distorted. With
dramatic events, behavioral effects may continue for years, and it will be difficult to
determine when the study should end.