Running head: CMGT 555 WK 2 DQ 1 1 CMGT 555 WK 2 DQ 1 4 CMGT 555 Wk 2 DQ 1 Student’s Name Institution Main Post What are 2 key attributes to well-written requirements? There are several key attributes to well-written requirements for a system project. Two core attributes to well-written requirements are clarity and risk. A well-written requirement for a system project should be able to identify risks and threats that may compromise the project at hand. Having a clear and straightforward system project will enable the project team members to have an understanding of everything that is needed for the success of the project (Wiegers, K., & Beatty, 2013). How do these attributes impact the quality of requirements? How might you assess system requirements based off these attributes? Clarity will create awareness on what should be done regarding the project thus promoting its effectiveness for success. Identification of risks will also allow you to select the most viable alternative for preventing threats that may compromise the entire project. Through this, the project team will know the needs required for the project. I will analyze all the possible risks that are likely to affect the project and whether we as a team are ready to counter any threats that might arise. Response to Peer 1 Hello, thank you for your significant contribution of the key attributes to well-written assignments and their impacts on the quality of requirements. I have read through your post and not only have I found it resourceful but it also captivating. Reading through the post has completely changed my perception, and this has made me understand the significance of ensuring well-written requirements. It is true that to ensure well-written requirements, some of the considerations have to be ensured. I conquer with you on the first attribute of clarity. A well-written requirement should be free from unnecessary information to ensure accuracy and validity. I think clarity also promotes soundness and makes the requirements easily understandable. Another important quality that should be considered is feasibility. That is to say that, your requirement should be achievable within the available resources and budget. Clarity and Feasibility will enable the project team members and various stakeholders to understand what exactly is needed regarding a given project. It will also allow the project team to know the requirements for a particular project regardless of the situation. Response to Peer 2 Hello, such a fantastic post made by you on the qualities t to well-written assignments. Requirement qualities are vital in ensuring that the person understands the information needed for a project to be undertaken. It is true that a key quality to a requirement that is well written is the one that makes good use of its resources. I conquer with you that risk is also another vital attribute to well-written requirements as this identifies what is at stake in case requirement.

1. Running head: CMGT 555 WK 2 DQ 1
1
CMGT 555 WK 2 DQ 1
4
CMGT 555 Wk 2 DQ 1
Student’s Name
Institution
Main Post
What are 2 key attributes to well-written requirements?
There are several key attributes to well-written requirements for
a system project. Two core attributes to well-written
requirements are clarity and risk. A well-written requirement
for a system project should be able to identify risks and threats
that may compromise the project at hand. Having a clear and
straightforward system project will enable the project team
members to have an understanding of everything that is needed
for the success of the project (Wiegers, K., & Beatty, 2013).
How do these attributes impact the quality of requirements?
How might you assess system requirements based off these
attributes?
Clarity will create awareness on what should be done regarding
the project thus promoting its effectiveness for success.
Identification of risks will also allow you to select the most
viable alternative for preventing threats that may compromise

2. the entire project. Through this, the project team will know the
needs required for the project. I will analyze all the possible
risks that are likely to affect the project and whether we as a
team are ready to counter any threats that might arise.
Response to Peer 1
Hello, thank you for your significant contribution of the key
attributes to well-written assignments and their impacts on the
quality of requirements. I have read through your post and not
only have I found it resourceful but it also captivating. Reading
through the post has completely changed my perception, and
this has made me understand the significance of ensuring well-
written requirements. It is true that to ensure well-written
requirements, some of the considerations have to be ensured. I
conquer with you on the first attribute of clarity. A well-written
requirement should be free from unnecessary information to
ensure accuracy and validity. I think clarity also promotes
soundness and makes the requirements easily understandable.
Another important quality that should be considered is
feasibility. That is to say that, your requirement should be
achievable within the available resources and budget. Clarity
and Feasibility will enable the project team members and
various stakeholders to understand what exactly is needed
regarding a given project. It will also allow the project team to
know the requirements for a particular project regardless of the
situation.
Response to Peer 2
Hello, such a fantastic post made by you on the qualities t to
well-written assignments. Requirement qualities are vital in
ensuring that the person understands the information needed for
a project to be undertaken. It is true that a key quality to a
requirement that is well written is the one that makes good use
of its resources. I conquer with you that risk is also another
vital attribute to well-written requirements as this identifies

3. what is at stake in case requirement is not implemented. Other
significant qualities are clarity and information free from
errors.
Response to Peer 3
Hello, I appreciate you for your great insights on the critical
attributes of well-written requirements for a system project. I
have read through the post and found it engaging. I conquer
with you that the first attribute to well-written assignments is to
have no ambiguity regarding any of the terms employed.
Interpreting the design and development phases of a project is
also another vital attribute to well-written assignments for a
system project. It is true that maintaining consistency is another
critical attribute to well-written requirements that many project
managers should employ (Robertson & Robertson, 2012). All
these attributes will enable you to develop a sound plan that
will lead to the success of your project.
References
Robertson, S., & Robertson, J. (2012). Mastering the
requirements process: Getting requirements right. Addison-
wesley.
Wiegers, K., & Beatty, J. (2013). Software requirements.
Pearson Education.
Discussion: Yin and Stake Case Study Philosophical
Worldviews
Robert Yin and Robert Stake are two major voices in the field
of qualitative research, but they also have differing
philosophical orientations. Yin’s work, with its post-positivist
perspective, has been most commonly represented, with Stake’s
constructivist approach less so. Many of the design decisions
you make will be determined by the philosophical orientation—
post-positivist or constructivist—you employ for your Doctoral

4. Study. See if your philosophical orientation is more aligned
with Yin or Stake, or perhaps a combination of both.
To prepare for this Discussion, review this week’s Required
Readings that include the different perspectives of Yin and
Stake and consider which one is most appropriate to your work
as an independent scholar and doctoral researcher.
Guillermo
Perspective as a qualitative doctoral researcher.
My perspective as a qualitative researcher aligns with Yin’s
(2018) post-positivist approach at the data collection and
interpretation stages. However, validation aligns more to
Stakes’ approach as explained by Boblin, Ireland, Kirkpatrick,
and Robertson (2013). Yin’s post-positivist approach proposes
that knowledge can advance by understanding phenomena in its
natural state through multi-method observation and
interpretation of events using questions, propositions, an
analysis unit(s), logic and interpretation criteria while
recognizing the inherent limitations of the observer (Yazan,
2015).
Stake’s constructivist approach uses the scientific method
approach of isolating the variable to test relationships
(Yazan,2015). Social science seeks to understand the behaviors
of groups, where interactions are complex and rarely isolated
(Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2015). The complexity of
interactions demands vast amounts of data to cover all possible
variables for an empirical explanation using Stake’s approach.
Big data and artificial intelligence allow computers to analyze
complex iterations to establish and prioritize relationships
(Femina Bahari, Sudheep Elayidom, 2015). Yin’s post-positivist
approach can help analyze the phenomena, uncover the most
salient interactions, identify possible relations and moderating

5. factors, as well and help formulate the theory. Stake’s
constructivism can empirically test, and even re-define the
relevant variables and influences to add validity and possibly
generalizability of the study.
References
Boblin, S. L., Ireland, S., Kirkpatrick, H., & Robertson, K.
(2013). Using Stake’s qualitative case study approach to explore
implementation evidence-based practice. Qualitative Health
Research, 23, 1267–1275. doi:10.1177/1049732313502128
Femina Bahari, T., Sudheep Elayidom M., (2015). An efficient
CRM-data mining framework for the prediction of customer
behavior, Procedia Computer Science, 46, 725-731.
doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.02.136.
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A.
(2015). Research methods for business students (7th ed.).
Essex, England: Pearson Education Unlimited.
Yazan, B. (2015). Three approaches to case study methods in
education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. The Qualitative Report,
20(2), 134–152. Retrieved
from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR20/2/yazan1.pdf
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications:
Design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Michael
here are many decisions to make when conducting qualitative
research. One of the various considerations is the philosophical
orientation or perspective as a researcher. For this week’s
discussion, I will describe the perspective I chose for my
qualitative doctoral research and the rationale behind my
decision.

6. Two Different Approaches
The post-positivist researcher seeks truth through valuing
processes and exploring an ultimate truth or reality whereas
constructivist researchers claim that truth is relative or a result
of a perspective (Boblin, Ireland, Kirkpatrick, & Robertson,
2013). Robert Yin and Robert Stake are two seminal authors
who provide case study procedures with Yin demonstrating
positivistic leanings in his perspective while Stake orients his
viewpoint from constructivism (Yazan, 2015). Neither one of
these perspectives is wrong. A researcher must examine his or
her professional and academic worldviews to determine which
view works for them epistemologically.
My Research Approach
Yazan (2015) stated that as a researcher, he closely subscribed
to a constructivist paradigm in which he conceived knowledge
as being socially constructed and emerging from people’s social
practices. I tend to agree with this methodology and see myself
as a follower of the constructivist approach. Boblin et al. (2013)
described the constructivist style as the search for happenings
and not causes while the post-positivist sees a conceptual
framework as essential in portraying a hypothesized cause-and-
effect relationship. I want to research, describe what happened,
and not pay as much attention to the causes. A post-positivist
orientation uses a formal conceptual framework and
propositions but with a constructivist orientation, researchers
can use a conceptual framework to guide the study, but it is not
required, and the researcher may develop issue statements, but
they are also not necessary (Boblin et al., 2013). It seems to me,
Yin provides a more structured approach that could limit the
new researcher whereas Stakes allows more flexibility and the
design better suits my perspective.
Conclusion
Researchers have different views from which to frame
their qualitative research. Using a post-positivist or
a constructivist approach yields a different outcome to interact
with readers. This week, I discussed my qualitative research

7. philosophical approach and my motivation for using it.
References
Boblin, S. L., Ireland, S., Kirkpatrick, H., & Robertson, K.
(2013). Using Stake’s qualitative case study approach to explore
implementation evidence-based practice. Qualitative Health
Research, 23, 1267-1275. doi:10.1177/1049732313502128
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2015). Research
methods for business students (7th ed.). Essex, England:
Pearson Education Unlimited.
Yazan, B. (2015). Three approaches to case study methods in
education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. The Qualitative Report,
20(2), 134-152. Retrieved from
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR20/2/yazan1.pdf
Qualitative Health Research
23(9) 1267 –1275
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1049732313502128
qhr.sagepub.com
Advancing Qualitative Methods
The use of the qualitative case study (QCS) approach by
researchers has increased within health care research dur-
ing the past decade (Anthony & Jack, 2009). The research
conducted by Robert Yin and Robert Stake generally has
been cited by researchers in support of the methodology
used. Yin (2003, 2009) and Stake (1994, 1995, 2005),
however, have differing philosophical orientations, and

8. the simultaneous application and citation of their work
ignores these philosophical perspectives. This has threat-
ened the credibility of the work conducted. Yin’s work,
with its postpositivist perspective, has been most com-
monly represented, with Stake’s constructivist approach
less so.
In the following narrative we describe how we applied
Stake’s recommendations about the QCS approach to the
implementation of a nursing best-practice guideline
(BPG) in three acute-care organizations in southwestern
Ontario, Canada. The focus of this article is on the case
study approach we used (Ireland, Kirkpatrick, Boblin, &
Robertson, 2012). Using the case study approach, we
wanted to know who was involved, the processes they
used, the outcomes of their activities, and the context
within which these were situated. Our research question
was thus, How was the Registered Nurses Association of
Ontario’s (RNAO) “Prevention of Falls and Fall Injuries
in the Older Adult BPG” (Falls BPG; RNAO, 2005)
implemented in three acute-care hospitals at the organiza-
tion and point-of-care levels? We selected Stake’s (1994,
1995, 2005) QCS approach as our research design. We
wanted to increase our understanding of the implementa-
tion phenomenon to inform subsequent implementation
of BPGs. We obtained ethical approval for the research
from the affiliated university and each of the participating
hospitals.
Qualitative Case Study Approach
Creswell (2013) described the QCS approach as an explo-
ration of a “bounded system” or case over time through
detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple
sources of information, each with its own sampling, data

9. collection, and analysis strategies. The outcome is a case
description comprised of case-based themes. Researchers
have characterized the QCS approach as a contextually
based tradition; difficulty exists in separating the case
502128QHRXXX10.1177/1049732313502128Qualitative Health
ResearchBoblin et al.
research-article2013
1McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
2St. Joseph’s Health Care Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Sheryl L. Boblin, McMaster University School of Nursing, HSC
3N28F,
1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
Email: [email protected]
Using Stake’s Qualitative Case Study
Approach to Explore Implementation
of Evidence-Based Practice
Sheryl L. Boblin1, Sandra Ireland1, Helen Kirkpatrick2, and
Kim Robertson2
Abstract
Although the use of qualitative case study research has
increased during the past decade, researchers have primarily
reported on their findings, with less attention given to methods.
When methods were described, they followed the
principles of Yin; researchers paid less attention to the equally
important work of Stake. When Stake’s methods were
acknowledged, researchers frequently used them along with
Yin’s. Concurrent application of their methods did not
take into account differences in the philosophies of these two
case study researchers. Yin’s research is postpositivist
whereas Stake’s is constructivist. Thus, the philosophical

10. assumptions they used to guide their work were different. In
this article we describe how we used Stake’s approach to
explore the implementation of a falls-prevention best-practice
guideline. We focus on our decisions and their congruence with
Stake’s recommendations, embed our decisions within
the context of researching this phenomenon, describe rationale
for our decisions, and present lessons learned.
Keywords
case studies; evidence-based practice; practice guidelines;
research design; research, qualitative
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F10497323
13502128&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2013-08-07
1268 Qualitative Health Research 23(9)
from the context in which it occurs. According to
Creswell, the type of case study is determined by the size
of the bounded case or the intent of the analysis.
Researchers have used the QCS across numerous disci-
plines to contribute to the knowledge of individuals,
groups, processes, and relationships (Yin, 2003, 2009).
As Stake (1995, 2005), Merriam (1988), and Yin (2009)
have contended, the case study approach allows for a
holistic understanding of a phenomenon within real-life
contexts from the perspective of those involved. Stake
has depicted the case study approach as possessing the
ability to grasp the intricacies of a phenomenon. Case
studies have been described as best suited to research that
asks “how” and “why” questions (Stake, 2005; Yin,
2003).
Methodology

11. For this research, we used a single instrumental case
study design based on the methodology described by
Stake (2005). We chose one issue, the implementation of
the Falls BPG, and selected one bounded case to illustrate
the issue. Our case was bounded by time, location, and
BPG. We chose this approach because of its ability to
integrate the complex and variable phenomenon of the
Falls BPG implementation and evaluation across three
multisite, acute-care hospital contexts into one narrative
report. We did not want to tell the individual story of each
setting, which would result in three separate case studies
(collective case study), or conduct an intrinsic case study.
We were interested in a holistic analysis (Stake, 1995), or
the gestalt of the implementation of the Falls BPG across
three settings during a 3-year time span. As the study
unfolded, the boundary of time needed reconsideration.
Participants at the three hospitals described efforts
directed at the case (implementation of the Falls BPG)
that preceded the intended start date of the study. Data
collection needed to allow for the inclusion of this infor-
mation. Stake’s (1995) methodology allowed for the flex-
ibility of this boundary, which speaks to the power of the
approach. To exclude this information would have
resulted in a less-than-complete picture of the case.
Our decision to use Stake (2005) rather than Yin
(2009) as the methodologist to follow was based on our
combined consideration of the intent of the research and
our philosophical orientation. Yin presented a much
more structured approach to case study research than did
Stake. Some critics of his work have suggested that Yin’s
research has been situated within a postpositivist para-
digm, whereas Stake’s has been a constructivist. The
philosophical assumptions that underlie Stake’s and
Yin’s approaches are presented in Table 1. Stake and Yin
are presented according to ontology (the nature of real-

12. ity), epistemology (how reality is known), axiology (the
role of values), and methodology (approach to inquiry;
Creswell, 2013).
As illustrated in Table 1, the postpositivist researcher
seeks truth through valuing process, stressing the pri-
macy of the method, and seeking an ultimate truth or real-
ity. For these researchers, control, predictability, and
rationality have been emphasized (Crabtree & Miller,
1999). Postpositivist research has elements of being
reductionist, logical, cause-and-effect-oriented, and
deterministic based on a priori theories (Creswell, 2013).
Constructivist researchers have claimed that truth is rela-
tive; it is the result of perspective. Discovery and inter-
pretation occur concurrently and are embedded in the
context (Crabtree & Miller).
In keeping with a postpositivist orientation, Yin (2009)
has advocated the use of a formal conceptual framework
and propositions that are tested and accepted or refuted as
data are collected and analyzed. Stake (1995), in keeping
with a constructivist orientation, has directed that
researchers can use a conceptual framework to guide the
study, but this is not required. With Stake’s approach,
issue statements might be developed by the researcher,
but are not necessary. We debated whether a conceptual
framework as advocated by Yin would constrain the col-
lection and analysis of data and whether Stake’s recom-
mendation of a flexible conceptual framework would be
too lacking in structure.
Consequently, the question of which framework to
use, if any, and how to use it, was a significant design
decision we encountered. We thought that a focus on
proving or disproving rival hypotheses with a rigid con-

13. ceptual framework, rather than uncovering previously
unknown elements of the phenomenon, might limit the
richness of data collected. We decided to follow Stake’s
recommendations, beginning with a flexible, relatively
unstructured conceptual framework. Our experiences as
the study unfolded, in fact, provided substantiation for
the soundness of this decision. Periodically throughout
the study, our reflexive journals captured comments such
as, “I never would have thought of that,” in response to
the information collected.
We selected the Promoting Action Research in Health
Services (PARiHS) framework (Kitson, Harvey, &
McCormack, 1998) to provide a way of thinking about
the research, direct the data collection, and organize the
emerging findings without imposing the structure of a
conceptual framework advocated by Yin. It provided the
classification schema we needed without confining the
data collection and analysis. According to Kitson et al.
(1998), Kitson et al. (2008), and Rycroft-Malone et al.
(2004), the PARiHS framework contains three general
areas to consider in preparing for research or action: (a)
the nature of the evidence, (b) the quality of the context
for coping with change, and (c) the type of facilitation for
Boblin et al. 1269
a successful change. As the research unfolded, we used
the PARiHS framework to guide the questions for the
interviews, promote completeness of data collection, and
classify emerging findings. For example, as the role of
the point-of-care staff in implementing the Falls BPG
emerged, we categorized these findings within the evi-
dence component of the PARiHS framework.

14. The Context
Nursing BPGs have been described as a compilation of
the best available evidence related to nursing practice
issues (RNAO, 2009). Experts at the RNAO used a rigor-
ous process to compile and summarize evidence, and pro-
vide succinct recommendations to assist nurses in
implementing best practice (RNAO, 2005). In 2002,
expert nurses at the RNAO produced the Falls BPG
(revised in 2005). The RNAO is the registered nurses’
professional organization in Ontario, Canada; almost 50
BPGs can be found on the RNAO Web site.1 Guidelines,
however, do not implement themselves, and implementa-
tion does not necessarily proceed in a straightforward
manner (Wallin, Profetto-McGrath, & Levers, 2005). In
recognition of this, a RNAO initiative supported the eval-
uation of the implementation of a Falls BPG by three hos-
pitals. Our research fell within this rubric: we explored
how the Falls BPG was implemented.
Participants
In 2006, nursing leadership at each of the three hospitals
involved in this research joined in a partnership with the
RNAO. All three hospitals had university affiliations.
They ranged in size from approximately 300 to 900 beds,
Table 1. A Comparison of Stake’s and Yin’s Philosophical
Assumptions.
Philosophical Assumptions
Constructivist Assumptions
(Stake, 1995, 2005)

15. Postpositivist Assumptions
(Yin, 2003, 2009)
Ontology: What is the
nature of reality?
Reality is subjective; subjectivity is an
essential aspect of understanding. The
emphasis is on holistic treatment of
phenomena, with elements intricately
linked. Understanding phenomena
requires looking at a variety of contexts,
such as temporal, spatial, economic,
historical, political, social, and personal.
Reality (ultimate truth) is objective and predictable.
Causal explanations can be developed both to
direct the research and as a result of the findings
(process). Control, predictability, and rationality
are emphasized. Different strategies are selected
to accomplish different ends.
Epistemology: What is the
relationship between
the researcher and the
researched?
The researcher interacts with the
phenomenon, usually during a prolonged
period of time. The intent is to lessen
the distance between the researcher
and who or what is being researched.
The researcher might have an insider
view, seeking to understand the human
experience.

16. The researcher is detached, neutral, and
independent of what is being researched. The
desire is to understand complex social phenomena.
This allows the researcher to retain holistic and
meaningful characteristics of real-life events.
Axiology: What is the role
of values?
The value- and bias-laden nature of the
work is acknowledged and embraced.
The attempt is to control for bias. An example of
this is seen in the consideration of interviews as
“verbal reports only,” full of reporter bias. The
researcher is encouraged to corroborate interview
data with other sources of evidence. Yin suggests
that case study researchers have allowed biased
views to influence the findings and conclusions.
Methodology: What is the
process of research?
Research methods are inductive and
flexible. Discovery and interpretation
occur concurrently. No a priori
conceptual framework is required; a
flexible beginning conceptual framework
might be used. A naturalistic paradigm is
used.
The search is for “happenings,” not
causes. The goal is understanding, with
interpretation being the primary method
of understanding.

17. Research has elements of being reductionist, logical,
cause-and-effect-oriented, and deterministic based
on a priori theories. General theories are used
to generate propositions that are operationalized
as hypotheses. Prepositions are subjected
to replicable empirical testing, providing the
opportunity for confirmation and falsification. A
conceptual framework is essential in portraying
a hypothesized cause-and-effect relationship.
Propositions are used to identify relationships
among constructs and to direct data collection and
analysis.
1270 Qualitative Health Research 23(9)
with the total number of nursing staff (registered nurses
and registered practical nurses) in each hospital ranging
from approximately 800 to 3,400. All three hospitals rep-
resented an amalgamation of smaller hospitals. They
were recognized as “Best Practice Spotlight Organization”
(BPSO) candidates by the RNAO. An important element
was the shared vision by the hospital leaders about the
3-year partnership with the RNAO as a new incentive to
assist them to reengage their nursing staff in creating an
evidence-based culture, building sustainable nursing
infrastructures, and evaluating outcomes to promote best
practices for the future. The RNAO required the hospitals
to establish partnerships with academic affiliates to sup-
port the evaluation of their work and the conduct of
research.
Data Collection

18. The use of multiple sources of data, rich in real-life situ-
ations, has been described as a distinguishing characteris-
tic of case study methodology (Stake, 1995). According
to Stake (1995), varied sources of data are collected and
analyzed to obtain multiple perspectives and points of
view to obtain a holistic understanding of the phenome-
non being researched. Triangulation is a term that has
been frequently used to describe this use of multiple data
sources (Hentz, 2012). Unlike Yin, who has suggested
that the purpose of using multiple sources is to assist the
researcher in identifying convergence of findings (2003),
Stake (1995) has suggested that triangulation can also be
used by researchers to identify divergence. In our study,
we used triangulation for both purposes.
We collected data from multiple sources to ensure that
our data were as rich as possible and to confirm our find-
ings. An example of how we used triangulation to demon-
strate divergence is illustrated as follows: in our interview
with M., we asked an open question to determine this
nurse’s experience with implementing the Falls BPG. We
soon realized that this experience had begun much earlier
than we had been led to understand from leadership per-
sonnel who had been interviewed previously. Several
years earlier, as a baccalaureate in nursing student and
subsequently as a new manager, this individual had led
the implementation of the RNAO Falls BPG within a
nursing unit. Nurses on this unit had not only imple-
mented some of the guideline recommendations; they had
also developed an evaluation plan.
Our data sources included focus groups and individual
interviews, documents and artifacts, and observations of
the environments. Key individuals within the hospitals
presented the richest source of data, and for this reason
comprised the principal source. As with all qualitative

19. inquiry, there was no clear differentiation between the
collection, analysis, and interpretation phases (Janesick,
1994). Rather, we used an iterative or recursive process in
which the ongoing analysis and interpretation of existing
data helped us decide when and if more data were needed,
and from which sources.
Focus Groups and Individual Interviews
We used a purposeful, criterion-based convenience sam-
pling method (Patton, 1990) to identify data, participants,
and sources. At each site, individuals thought to possess
the knowledge about the implementation of the Falls
BPG were identified and their involvement was requested.
We identified nurses with particular criteria for involve-
ment. Questions were raised in research team meetings as
to whether this approach to sampling influenced the
transferability of the findings. We decided that this
approach provided the richest data, and for this reason
was appropriate (Kuzel, 1999). We thought that our use
of multiple sources of data and the number of individuals
involved would offset any challenges to credibility.
We used a member-checking process to further sub-
stantiate credibility. Member checking involves taking
data and interpretations back to the participants in a study
so they can confirm the credibility of the information and
narrative account (Creswell & Miller, 2000). We identi-
fied further informants as data collection and analysis
ensued. For example, through a review of documents
(minutes of meetings) we identified further informants,
who were then contacted to request their involvement.
Informants possessing special knowledge were identified
through the interviews themselves. Coinvestigators and
research liaisons at each site were asked to identify and

20. organize interviews/focus groups. Consents were
obtained by the research interviewers at the time of the
interview.
Participants were situated at multiple levels within the
hospitals, ranging from nurses providing direct care to
patients, whom we termed point-of-care nurses, to nurses
at the highest levels within the organizations. Typically,
we organized the interviews around a specific unit or a
specific category of staff (e.g., educators or managers).
We interviewed 95 individuals about their perspectives
on the implementation of the Falls BPG within their hos-
pitals. Most participants belonged to the point-of-care
category (n = 41). In some groups, there was another pro-
fessional category represented; at other times another
individual/role participated (e.g., a manager in a point-of-
care group). The interest in the Falls BPG implementa-
tion was illustrated by the willingness of these individuals
to be involved in this research.
We conducted18 focus groups. Participants were pro-
vided release time from their work to attend the ses-
sions. We used a semistructured format with a
semistructured interview guide (Brown, 1999). There
Boblin et al. 1271
were four components to the interview guide. We based
the questions on a broad conceptualization of the
PARiHS framework; questions addressed (a) context,
(b) historical issues related to the decision to imple-
ment, (c) implementation, and (d) evaluation. The ques-
tions were broad statements, modified to suit the
category of participant. We used prompts to assist us in

21. clarifying responses and in seeking a richer understand-
ing of the participants’ perspectives. Examples of the
interview questions can be found in Table 2.
The focus groups were facilitated by a principal inves-
tigator (PI) and research coordinator (RC). The PI posed
the questions; the RC documented the responses. The PI
was an experienced interviewer and qualitative researcher.
Both the PI and RC had extensive expertise in risk man-
agement and in the implementation of BPGs. The focus
groups were not audiotaped; detailed field notes were
kept by the RC during the interviews. Immediately fol-
lowing the interviews, the PI and RC discussed and docu-
mented further data to ensure completeness.
We modeled the individual interviews after the focus
groups. We used the interview guides developed for the
focus groups in conducting the individual interviews. The
interviews typically took place in the offices of the par-
ticipants or in meeting rooms arranged for us by hospital
staff. We conducted 38 individual interviews in total at
the three sites. We used field notes to assist us in record-
ing the responses to the interview questions.
Documents
In case study research, researchers use documents as a
source of contextual information about events that cannot
be directly observed; documents also are used by
researchers to confirm or question information from other
sources (Stake, 1995). We collected a variety of docu-
ments, including project proposals, reports, presenta-
tions, email communication, minutes of meetings,
abstracts, policies, graduate student theses, Web site data,
corporate falls data, audit data, and executive letters.

22. Nurses and key informants had identified these docu-
ments as important as data collection proceeded.
In this study, we used our analysis of the 787 docu-
ments that were recorded during the implementation of
Table 2. Focus Group and Individual Interview Questions.
Participant Context
Historical Issues Related
to Implementation Implementation Evaluation
Point-of-Care
Staff
Tell me about your
nursing unit and the
patients you provide
care for.
Do you know your fall
rates?
What do you consider a
fall to be?
How are falls recorded in
your nursing unit?
Who decided to
implement the
guideline?
How were you
informed about the

23. implementation of the
BPG?
How was the BPG on
falls and falls injuries
implemented at your
site?
What resources were
used to implement the
plan?
Were patients or
families involved in the
implementation of the
BPG?
Has the implementation
been successful?
Is it working?
In what way?
How has falls reporting
changed since
implementation of the
guidelines?
Organizational-
Level Staff
Tell me about your
hospital and the patients
you provide care for.

24. Tell me about your
nursing and other
professional staff.
What are their strengths?
What type of falls do you
see?
How much of a fall does
it need to be in order
to be reported?
What was happening
within the organization
at that time that may
have contributed to the
implementation of the
BPG?
How was the
implementation plan
developed?
What were the objectives
of your implementation
plan?
How did you
decide which
recommendations
within the BPG to
implement?
Who has/what disciplines
have been involved?

25. Has the implementation
been successful?
Have falls changed since
the implementation of
the guideline?
How has implementation
been evaluated?
Are you planning on
implementing other
BPGs?
What have been the key
successes of guideline
implementation? At
the point-of-care level?
Organization level?
Externally?
Note. BPG = best practice guideline.
1272 Qualitative Health Research 23(9)
the Falls BPG to provide contextual and historical infor-
mation within which to frame the case. We initially visu-
ally scanned the documents to get a sense of which
aspects of the documents pertained to the implementation
of the Falls BPG. We noted these sections within the doc-
uments and returned to them for further analysis. We
coded the documents and journaling to allow linkages
between the data contained within the documents and

26. those presented by the participants.
Artifacts
We used artifacts associated with the implementation of
the Falls BPG as both contextual and facilitative evi-
dence. The coinvestigators identified the artifacts first at
each site and then through interviews and document
reviews. These artifacts included assessment tools, BPSO
logos and marketing materials, patient and staff educa-
tional materials, posters, and event invitations.
Observations of the Context
These data included observations of each hospital’s envi-
ronment, which we gathered as we attended the hospitals
for data collection. They also included information col-
lected from hospital Web sites. A review of these data, as
with artifacts, contributed to our understanding of the
contextual factors influencing the implementation of the
Falls BPG.
Analysis
We followed the editorial analysis style described by
Addison (1999) in combination with the phases of data
analysis (i.e., description, categorical aggregation, estab-
lishing patterns, and naturalistic generalizations) described
by Stake (1995, 2005). We considered Addison’s approach
to be congruent with the constructivist orientation advo-
cated by Stake. Addison described the editorial or herme-
neutic style of analysis as beginning with data collection
itself. In keeping with this description, we began our anal-
ysis with all data sources as we asked participants ques-
tions, reviewed the documents, and made observations of
the artifacts and environments.

27. While we collected the data, we noted assertions about
what was being described, and what we observed happen-
ing. These assertions (Stake, 1995) reflected our interpre-
tations and our understandings of how the Falls BPG had
been implemented. As an example, as focus group inter-
views were conducted, we made notes in the margins and
white spaces left alongside the interview questions. We
made notations that not only described the responses the
participants made, but also of our initial interpretations of
their responses. Using Addison’s (1999) words, “Events,
behaviors, words and dialogues were noted and fixed in
the form of text” (p. 153). As we conducted further inter-
views and made observations, we clumped the coded data
into categories (categorical aggregation) and amassed
these textual documents into files that members of the
research team then compiled and reviewed. We noted
meaningful segments of data and documented patterns
and themes. We arrived at plausible explanations using a
process of inductive analysis (Patton, 1999). We dis-
cussed our perspectives and interpretations during team
meetings; we used a constant comparative approach to
look for other ways of organizing the data so that differ-
ent findings might be revealed.
As we cycled through the process of data collection,
analysis, and interpretation, we became aware of the sim-
ilarities between a description of the Falls BPG imple-
mentation and a journey. It became evident that
participants at the three hospitals shared experiences, yet
maintained individual differences. The nature of the jour-
ney crystallized for us as we revealed our understandings
of the experiences of participants. Documents and arti-
facts enabled the situating of these experiences within the
complex context of health care. We used the analogy of a

28. journey to present the findings. We shared our interpreta-
tions and the portrayal of the Falls BPG implementation
as a journey with participants at the three hospitals. This
member checking (Creswell & Miller, 2000) increased
our confidence in the robustness of our findings.
Participants, from point-of-care staff to top nursing exec-
utives, attested to how the findings resonated with their
experiences.
Results
The following represents a brief synopsis of the results.
We present the phases of the journey traveled by the par-
ticipants, followed by the four major themes. Details of
the findings, including exemplars, can be found else-
where (Ireland et al., 2012). We identified six stages or
phases of their journey: (a) the early journey, (b) shifting
sands, (c) gaining traction, (d) reinvesting in the journey:
a new vehicle, (e) on the road, and (f) moving forward.
We portrayed the stages as movements from one phase to
another. Participants’ voices and documents reflected
early efforts made in an attempt to reduce patient falls.
Long before the three hospitals came together as RNAO
BPSO candidates, all had begun their respective journey
toward falls prevention.
These early journeys were frought with hurdles (shift-
ing sands) that reflected the nature of the contexts at those
times. The support and funding provided by the RNAO
and the development of practice standards for the use of
restraints (College of Nurses of Ontario, 2009) allowed
the organizations to gain traction and move forward. As a
Boblin et al. 1273

29. result of RNAO support, organizations were identified as
BPSO candidates; champions were trained and in place in
clinical units. The 3-year partnerships established with
the RNAO caused a reinvesting in the journey: a new
vehicle. As BPSO candidates, hospital leadership in the
hospitals was responsible to ensure that executive spon-
sors, staff, structures, and processes were in place to
facilitate successful BPG implementation and evaluation
work and research (Ireland et al., 2012).
The road to implementation of the Falls BPG required
the involvement of nurses at multiple levels within the
hospitals, ranging from point-of-care nurses to top nurs-
ing executives. Moving forward required the adoption of
innovative strategies within each hospital, including the
involvement of graduate students, bundling of multiple
safety procedures, and launching of a major educational
initiative (Ireland et al., 2012). As is to be expected with
the initiation of any major initiative, the three hospitals
experienced roadblocks. Participants discussed how
resolving these roadblocks resulted in the identification
of beacons: navigational devices that help travelers reach
their destination, and which might be used by other orga-
nizations attempting to implement BPGs. Four primary
themes/beacons were revealed: (a) listen to and recognize
the experiential knowledge and clinical realities of staff,
(b) keep it simple, (c) when the simple becomes complex,
and (d) the journey is the destination (Ireland et al.).
As reported by Ireland et al. (2012), point-of-care
nursing staff in particular became frustrated and resistant
to change when they perceived a mismatch between the
Falls BPG prescribed at the organizational level and their
experience in fall risk reduction, knowledge of the needs
of specific patient populations, and the resources avail-

30. able to them. All participants described the frustration of
leaders, managers, and educators regarding the number of
competing priorities and the lack of dedicated time for
staff. Participants described the necessity for hospitals to
keep it simple in implementing fall-prevention best prac-
tices. Success was experienced on those units where
teams were allowed to identify, develop, and evaluate
strategies and tools tailored to the needs of their patient
populations and clinical realities (Ireland et al.).
Additionally, participants described success on units
where basic tools to guide implementation were pro-
vided, adaptation at the unit level was encouraged, and
competing priorities were minimized. Conversely, resis-
tance resulted when the tools provided did not match with
clinical realities and competing pressures.
Participants described the complexity of the envi-
ronments within which the Falls BPG was imple-
mented, acknowledging not only the clinical
environments but also the characteristics of the patients
and the nature of nursing work itself. Point-of-care
nursing staff described having to walk a thin line
between advocacy and paternalism, and beneficence
and autonomy. Collaborating with patients and families
to create a care plan based on the guideline became
incredibly complex when respect for autonomy, overall
goals of care, varied life experiences, learning needs of
patients and families, and available resources were fac-
tored into the equation (Ireland et al., 2012).
As the three hospitals traveled along their journey
toward implementation of the Falls BPG, what became
evident was the participants’ awareness that the journey
was the destination. The sustained commitment of point-
of-care nursing staff and leadership to continue to imple-

31. ment and reimplement evidence-based practices to meet
the fall-prevention needs of patients in their care became
evident. During 2 years, the fall-prevention journey of the
three hospitals had become an informally implemented,
continuous quality improvement process, rather than a
well-mapped journey with a predetermined end point
(Ireland et al., 2012).
Discussion: Lessons Learned
There were a number of lessons we learned as we reflected
on how we conducted this research. We captured these
lessons in our individual reflexive journals and in the
minutes of the research team meetings. They related to
the use of the QCS approach in general and the use of
Stake’s work as a methodology in particular. The strengths
and opportunities offered by the QCS approach were evi-
dent with this research. In particular, we found Stake’s
approach (1995, 2005) to be an appropriate method for
this case study. Using Stake’s recommendations, we were
able to understand the complex phenomenon of the Falls
BPG implementation within the context of three acute-
care hospitals. We concluded that Stake’s constructivist
approach provided adequate guidance without creating
undue restriction. Our experience was that new ideas
were revealed that might not have emerged if more struc-
ture, such as Yin’s (2003, 2009) approach, had been
imposed. The lack of a highly structured, predetermined
conceptual framework with accompanying propositions
did not inhibit our exploration of this phenomenon. Our
use of the PARiHS framework (Kitson et al., 1998) fit
well with Stake’s approach, providing flexible guidance
to the collection and analysis of data.
Our use of multiple sources of data, characteristic of
the QCS, contributed to a holistic and in-depth under-

32. standing of the phenomenon (the implementation of the
Falls BPG). In particular, the use of documents, observa-
tions, and artifacts alongside individual interviews and
focus groups enhanced our understanding of the context
within which this phenomenon occurred. Our use of mul-
tiple data sources contributed to credibility, offsetting the
purposeful, criterion-based convenience sampling that
1274 Qualitative Health Research 23(9)
we used. Additionally, our use of constructivist analysis
strategies was effective in facilitating the exploration of
this phenomenon.
We found the establishment of clear boundaries to be
essential. As with many QCSs, we tended to want to
expand beyond the time constraints and sources of data in
an attempt to understand even further the phenomenon
being explored. We found the interest and enthusiasm of
the nurses and participants within the hospitals exciting
and motivating. It would have been easy for us to drown
in data if the established boundaries were not maintained.
Three suggestions are included for how the research
could have been done differently. Tape recording focus
groups and individual interviews is a recommendation
frequently made when using these data collection meth-
ods. We had deliberately chosen to refrain from tape
recording as a way of containing costs. We did not antici-
pate any difficulty or reticence by the participants in
answering questions; this conclusion was borne out dur-
ing the data collection. We thought that the combined
expertise of the PI and RC also supported our design
decision. The luxury of having two researchers conduct-

33. ing the interviews and focus groups might not be the real-
ity for some research, which might result in a different
decision. Whether auditability could have been enhanced
by the use of taped sessions is open to debate.
We could have analyzed documents for context as well
as content (Miller & Alvarado, 2005). Whereas we were
experienced in the analysis of documents for content, and
documents were analyzed using this approach, we were
less experienced with analyzing for context; we therefore
followed the recommendations for context analysis as
advocated by Miller and Alvarado only minimally.
Understanding further why documents were produced, by
whom, and for what purpose might have contributed to an
enhanced understanding of the phenomenon. The obser-
vations were not guided by any particular tool; they were
directed by what we deemed was important at the time of
the observation. We might have collected more informa-
tion with the use of a framework such as that described by
Spradley (1980).
Spradley (1980) identified nine dimensions that can be
used by researchers to focus observations and increase
the range and depth of observations: space, actors, activi-
ties, objects, acts, events, time, goals, and feelings. If we
had developed a data recording form that captured sev-
eral of these dimensions, we might have collected richer
data. For example, a form documenting actors, goals, and
feelings might have enhanced our understanding of par-
ticipants’ responses to the implementation of the Falls
BPG. This recognition of the importance of context is in
keeping with the QCS approach and the PARiHS frame-
work (Creswell, 2013; Kitson et al., 2008).
Conclusion

34. The QCS approach has received increased attention
within health care research. Yin’s (2003, 2009) and
Stake’s (1995, 2005) work has frequently been cited
simultaneously without giving consideration to their
differing philosophical orientations. This dual applica-
tion of approaches with differing philosophical assump-
tions has challenged the credibility of reported QCS
research. Readers and researchers have been left with no
clear description of which approach to follow and how
to make the significant design decisions that must be
made. Additionally, the methodologist followed most
often has been Yin, resulting in QCSs that have been
more postpositivist than constructivist in nature. In this
article, we focused on our use of Stake’s (1995, 2005)
QCS approach using his constructivist methods to
understand the implementation of a Falls BPG in three
acute-care hospitals. The unique contributions included
in this article are the detailed description of the QCS
approach used and the application of Stake’s recommen-
dations to research design. The design decisions we
faced are described within the context of our research.
The description of researcher lessons learned might be
of use to researchers wishing to use Stake’s approach to
QCS.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
This work was supported by the Registered Nurses’ Association

35. of Ontario.
Note
1. See http://rnao.ca/bpg.
References
Addison, R. (1999). A grounded hermeneutic editing approach.
In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualita-
tive research (2nd ed., pp. 145-161). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Anthony, S., & Jack, S. (2009). Qualitative case study method-
ology in nursing research: An integrative review. Journal
of Advanced Nursing, 65(6), 1171-1181. doi:10.1111/
j.1365-2648.2009.04998.x.
Brown, J. B. (1999). The use of focus groups in clinical
research. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing
qualitative research (2nd. ed., pp. 109-124). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Boblin et al. 1275
College of Nurses of Ontario. (2009). Restraints. Retrieved
from
www.cno.org/learn-about-standards-guidelines/educational-
tools/learning-modules/restraints/
Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1999). Doing qualitative
research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research

36. design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in
qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.
doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
Hentz, P. (2012). Case study: The method. In P. L. Munhall
(Ed.), Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (5th ed.,
pp. 359-379.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Ireland, S., Kirkpatrick, H., Boblin, S., & Robertson, K. (2012).
The real world journey of implementing fall prevention
best practices in three acute care hospitals: A case study.
Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 10(2), 95-103.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2012.00258.x
Janesick, V. J. (1994). The dance of qualitative research
design. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook
of qualitative research (pp. 209-219). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Kitson, A., Harvey, G., & McCormack, B. (1998). Enabling the
implementation of evidence-based practice: A conceptual
framework. Quality & Safety in Healthcare, 7(3), 149-158.
doi:10.1136/qshc.7.3.149
Kitson, A. L., Rycroft-Malone, J., Harvey, G., McCormack,
B., Seers, K., & Titchen, A. (2008). Evaluating the suc-
cessful implementation of evidence into practice using
the PARiHS framework: Theoretical and practical chal-
lenges. Implementation Science, 3(1). doi:10.1186/
1748-5908-3-1
Kuzel, A. J. (1999). Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In B. F.
Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research

37. (2nd ed., pp. 33-45.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A
qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, F. A., & Alvarado, K. (2005). Incorporating docu-
ments into qualitative nursing research. Journal of
Nursing Scholarship, 37(4), 348-353. doi:10.1111/j.1547-
5069.2005.00060.x
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research
methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility
of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34(5),
1189-1208. Retrieved from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC1089059/
Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario. (2005). Prevention
of falls and fall injuries in the older adult. Retrieved from
http://rnao.ca/bpg/guidelines/prevention-falls-and-fall-
injuries-older-adult
Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario. (2009). Best prac-
tice spotlight organizations. Retrieved from http://rnao.ca/
bpg/bpso
Rycroft-Malone, J., Seers, K., Titchen, A., Harvey, G., Kitson,
A., & McCormack, B. (2004). What counts as evidence in
evidence-based practice? Journal of Advanced Nursing,
47(1), 81-90. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03068.x
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S.

38. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 236-
247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin
& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative
research (3rd ed., pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wallin, L., Profetto-McGrath, J., & Levers, M. J. (2005).
Implementing nursing practice guidelines: A complex under-
taking. Journal of Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Nursing,
32(5), 294-300. doi:10.1097/00152192-200509000-00004
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods
(4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Author Biographies
Sheryl L. Boblin, RN, PhD, is an associate professor at
McMaster University School of Nursing in Hamilton, Ontario,
Canada.
Sandra Ireland, RN, PhD, is an assistant clinical professor at
McMaster University School of Nursing, in Hamilton, Ontario,
Canada.
Helen Kirkpatrick, RN, PhD, is coordinator of the Best
Practices Spotlight Organization at St. Josephs’ Healthcare,
Hamilton, Ontario, and an assistant clinical professor at
McMaster University School of Nursing, Hamilton, Ontario,
Canada.

39. Kim Robertson, RN, MScCH, is a risk management specialist
at St. Joseph’s Healthcare in Hamilton, Ontario, and an assistant
clinical professor at McMaster University School of Nursing.
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
The Qualitative Report
Volume 20 | Number 2 Teaching and Learning 12
2-23-2015
Three Approaches to Case Study Methods in
Education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake
Bedrettin Yazan
University of Alabama, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at:
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr
Part of the Quantitative, Qualitative, Comparative, and
Historical Methodologies Commons, and
the Social Statistics Commons
This Teaching and Learning is brought to you for free and open
access by the The Qualitative Report at NSUWorks. It has been
accepted for inclusion
in The Qualitative Report by an authorized administrator of
NSUWorks. For more information, please contact
[email protected]
Recommended APA Citation
Yazan, B. (2015). Three Approaches to Case Study Methods in
Education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. The Qualitative Report,
20(2),

40. 134-152. Retrieved from
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss2/12
http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/?utm_source=nsuworks.nova.edu%
2Ftqr%2Fvol20%2Fiss2%2F12&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campa
ign=PDFCoverPages
http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/?utm_source=nsuworks.nova.edu%
2Ftqr%2Fvol20%2Fiss2%2F12&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campa
ign=PDFCoverPages
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr?utm_source=nsuworks.nova.edu%
2Ftqr%2Fvol20%2Fiss2%2F12&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campa
ign=PDFCoverPages
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20?utm_source=nsuworks.nov
a.edu%2Ftqr%2Fvol20%2Fiss2%2F12&utm_medium=PDF&utm
_campaign=PDFCoverPages
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss2?utm_source=nsuworks
.nova.edu%2Ftqr%2Fvol20%2Fiss2%2F12&utm_medium=PDF&
utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss2/12?utm_source=nsuwo
rks.nova.edu%2Ftqr%2Fvol20%2Fiss2%2F12&utm_medium=PD
F&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr?utm_source=nsuworks.nova.edu%
2Ftqr%2Fvol20%2Fiss2%2F12&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campa
ign=PDFCoverPages
http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/423?utm_source=nsu
works.nova.edu%2Ftqr%2Fvol20%2Fiss2%2F12&utm_medium=
PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1275?utm_source=ns
uworks.nova.edu%2Ftqr%2Fvol20%2Fiss2%2F12&utm_medium
=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss2/12?utm_source=nsuwo
rks.nova.edu%2Ftqr%2Fvol20%2Fiss2%2F12&utm_medium=PD
F&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
mailto:[email protected]

41. Three Approaches to Case Study Methods in Education: Yin,
Merriam,
and Stake
Abstract
Case study methodology has long been a contested terrain in
social sciences research which is characterized
by varying, sometimes opposing, approaches espoused by many
research methodologists. Despite being one
of the most frequently used qualitative research methodologies
in educational research, the methodologists do
not have a full consensus on the design and implementation of
case study, which hampers its full evolution.
Focusing on the landmark works of three prominent
methodologists, namely Robert Yin, Sharan Merriam,
Robert Stake, I attempt to scrutinize the areas where their
perspectives diverge, converge and complement
one another in varying dimensions of case study research. I aim
to help the emerging researchers in the field of
education familiarize themselves with the diverse views
regarding case study that lead to a vast array of
techniques and strategies, out of which they can come up with a
combined perspective which best serves their
research purpose.
Keywords
Qualitative Research, Case Study Methods, Epistemological
Foundations.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to my dear professor, Dr. Betty Malen, for her

42. comments on an earlier draft of this paper and for
her invaluable support throughout the process. I am also
thankful to the TQR Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Ronald
Chenail, for this review and constructive feedback, which led
this paper to become much stronger.
This teaching and learning is available in The Qualitative
Report: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss2/12
https://goo.gl/u1Hmes
https://goo.gl/u1Hmes
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss2/12?utm_source=nsuwo
rks.nova.edu%2Ftqr%2Fvol20%2Fiss2%2F12&utm_medium=PD
F&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
The Qualitative Report 2015 Volume 20, Number 2, Teaching
and Learning Article 1, 134-152
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR20/2/yazan1.pdf
Three Approaches to Case Study Methods in Education:
Yin, Merriam, and Stake
Bedrettin Yazan
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama
Case study methodology has long been a contested terrain in
social sciences
research which is characterized by varying, sometimes
opposing, approaches
espoused by many research methodologists. Despite being one

43. of the most
frequently used qualitative research methodologies in
educational research,
the methodologists do not have a full consensus on the design
and
implementation of case study, which hampers its full evolution.
Focusing on
the landmark works of three prominent methodologists, namely
Robert Yin,
Sharan Merriam, Robert Stake, I attempt to scrutinize the areas
where their
perspectives diverge, converge and complement one another in
varying
dimensions of case study research. I aim to help the emerging
researchers in
the field of education familiarize themselves with the diverse
views regarding
case study that lead to a vast array of techniques and strategies,
out of which
they can come up with a combined perspective which best
serves their
research purpose. Keywords: Qualitative Research, Case Study
Methods,
Epistemological Foundations.
Case study is one of the most frequently used qualitative
research methodologies.
However, it still does not have a legitimate status as a social
science research strategy
because it does not have well-defined and well-structured
protocols (Yin, 2002), so emerging
researchers who plan to utilize case study usually become
confused “as to what a case study
is and how it can be differentiated from other types of
qualitative research” (Merriam, 1998,

44. p. xi). Research methodologists do not have a consensus on the
design and implementation of
case study, which makes it a contested terrain and hampers its
full evolution. In this paper, I
aim to provide an analysis and synthesis of the differing
perspectives which are held by three
prominent methodologists, namely Robert K. Yin, Sharan
Merriam, and Robert E. Stake, on
the utilization of case study method in the field of educational
research. I will zero in on the
ensuing works: Robert K. Yin's Case Study Research: Design
and Methods (2002), Sharan B.
Merriam's Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in
Education (1998), and
Robert E. Stake's The Art of Case Study Research (1995).
I selected these three methodologists and their particular books
for the following
reasons. First, Yin, Merriam and Stake are the three seminal
authors who provide procedures
to follow when conducting case study research (Creswell,
Hanson, Plano, & Morales, 2007)
which aid educational researchers to construct a roadmap in
their utilization of case study.
They are seen as three foundational methodologists in the area
of case study research whose
methodological suggestions largely impact educational
researchers’ decisions concerning
case study design. Second, previous work on case study detailed
the design (Baxter & Jack,
2008), introduction (Tellis, 1997a), and application of case
study methodology (Tellis,
1997b) for broader audience of novice qualitative researchers. I
believe this paper would be
most beneficial and fruitful by exposing novice researchers to a
spectrum of different views

45. and conceptualizations of case study that are provided by
prominent research methodologists
from differing vantage points. This exposure would help them
construct or position their own
understanding in this spectrum so that they can conduct their
research with a dependable and
defensible design. Therefore, I present each one of the three
distinctive stances on the knotty
135 The Qualitative Report 2015
design issues in case study methodology through points of
divergence, convergence, and
complementarity. Finally, I opted to concentrate on their
particular books for the
juxtaposition in this paper, because in these seminal volumes
they conscientiously expound
upon case study research in its entirety by providing valuable
insights into its every step from
how it is being conceptualized to how it is communicated to the
readers. Thus, the readers of
the current paper will have a synthesis and analysis of three
complete guides to case study
methods, from which they can select the tools that are most
appropriate and functional for
their own research purposes.
In this paper, I endeavor to scrutinize the areas where these
three perspectives
diverge, converge and complement one another in varying
dimensions of case study research.
I am going to follow six categorical dimensions which the three
scholars mostly converge
upon in their seminal texts on case study method:

46. Epistemological Commitments, Defining
Case and Case Study, Designing Case Study, Gathering Data,
Analyzing Data, and
Validating Data.
Researcher’s Position
Prior to moving on to present a comparison of three case study
perspectives, I believe
readers need to know my identity as a researcher, my
investment in this topic, and my
intentions in this project. I just completed my doctoral degree in
the field of applied
linguistics with a dissertation focusing on English as a second
language (ESL) teacher
candidates’ professional identity development. As a doctoral
student at the University of
Maryland, my search for a research methodology led me to
develop interest in case study,
one of the most contested methods in educational research. I
was engaged in the iterative
process of narrowing down my research topic, honing my
questions, and trying to find the
most instrumental research method while conceptualizing and
designing my dissertation
project. Then, I signed up for a case study course which
introduced me to Yin, Merriam, and
Stake’s renditions of case study methodology. I had the chance
not only to weigh the
instrumentality of case study for my dissertation research but
also to decide which approach
to case study would best fit my epistemological orientation as
an emerging researcher. The
current paper is the product of this decision-making process.

47. My intention in this paper is to provide a comparative preview
of three foundational
texts of case study research for those emerging researchers who
are in the process of making
decisions about their methodological choices. Through this
paper, they can familiarize
themselves with differing case study approaches from which
they can select in order to make
their research design compatible with their epistemological
leanings and robust enough to
address their research questions. They can either choose to
utilize the tools offered by one
methodologist or construct an amalgam of tools from two or
three of them.
Challenges of Comparative Analysis
Before presenting the comparison of the three perspectives on
case study method, I
should mention the major challenges involved in the
composition of this comparative piece.
The three authors seem to have different purposes in writing
seminal books I attempt to
analyze in this paper. This difference partially precluded me
from comparing and contrasting
the three case study perspectives on the same ground in all
aspects of case study method. For
instance, in Stake’s (1995) The Art of Case Study Research, the
main addressee is students
who are planning to employ case study as a methodology in
their research projects. The chief
purpose of his book is the explication of a set of interpretive
orientations towards case study
which include “naturalistic, holistic, ethnographic,
phenomenological, and biographic

48. Bedrettin Yazan 136
research methods” (Stake, 1995, p. xi). Yin appears to aim at
presenting the design and
methods of case study and advocating the case study in social
sciences as a legitimate
methodology to conduct inquiries into a theoretical proposition.
He maintains that all of the
previous attempts seemed to lack a comprehensive guide to the
utilization of case study
method. Therefore, he wants his text to fill “a void in social
science methodology, which has
been dominated by texts … that offer few guides on how to start
a case study, analyze the
data, or even minimize the problems of composing the case
study report” (Yin, 2002, p. 3).
Having noticed the paucity of available resources for case study
researchers, Merriam, like
Yin, had the purpose of contributing to the case study literature
which “still lags behind
[literature on] other types” of research (Merriam, 1998, p. 19).
Merriam’s text principally
centers upon general tenets and usages of qualitative research
with a secondary emphasis on
how they are applied to case study as one of the qualitative
research methods. She intends to
elucidate the extant “blurred” areas in case study. The purpose
of her book is to clear out the
confusion about case study in qualitative research and to
illuminate “what constitutes a case
study, how it differs from other qualitative research methods
and when it is most appropriate
to use it” (Merriam, 1998, p. 19). These disparities could

49. explain the questions about authors’
varying emphases which may arise in the remainder of the
analysis. The subsequent section
will highlight another type of disparity which I should address
before commencing to delve
into the analysis.
To describe the method I followed in this analysis, my initial
scrutiny of the three
texts led me to select a set of criteria to focus on while
conducting my comparative and
contrastive analysis. This set of criteria include the following:
epistemological commitments,
defining case and case study, designing case study, gathering
data, analyzing data, and
validating data. My second step was to create a chart in which I
inserted what I found in
terms of similarities and differences of those three case study
approaches. I built this chart by
going through the relevant sections of each text to understand
how they diverge and converge
in each criterion. Upon completing this chart, I wanted to check
the validity of my analysis
with more experienced qualitative researchers whom I call
critical friends. I had one-on-one
meetings with three advanced doctoral students and the
professor of the case study seminar
course I took. My conversations with them gave the final shape
to the chart that guided the
current paper.
Epistemological Commitments
Researchers’ views about the nature and production of

50. knowledge, their
epistemological bent in brief, underlie the inquiry project they
conceptualize and operate. It
permeates every step of the entire investigation process, from
selection of the phenomenon of
interest that is put under scrutiny to the way the ultimate report
is composed. As Merriam
notes, “Research is, after all, producing knowledge about the
world – in our case, the world
of educational practice” (Merriam, 1998, p. 3). As researchers
and research methodologists,
Yin, Merriam and Stake have their own epistemic commitments
which impact their
perspectives on case study methodology and the principles and
the steps they recommend the
emerging researchers to adhere to while exploiting case study
method in their research
endeavors. These commitments manifest themselves either
explicitly or implicitly throughout
their seminal texts on case study research and determine the
vantage points from which they
conceive of case study. Therefore, prior to my analysis, I will
capitalize on Yin, Merriam and
Stake’s particular epistemological orientation, which will
inform the ensuing analysis.
Yin demonstrates positivistic leanings in his perspective on case
study. Crotty (1998)
suggests that three notions are fundamental in positivistic
orientation in research: objectivity,
validity and generalizability. If the researchers claim that the
findings their proposed study
137 The Qualitative Report 2015

51. will yield will be “established facts, or at least as close to
established fact as [their] research
has enabled [them] to reach,” from Crotty’s (1998) viewpoint, it
means that the philosophical
tradition that is undergirding their research is positivism (p.
41). Yin does not explicitly
articulate his epistemological orientation in his text, but the
way he approaches case study or
research in general and the aspects he emphasizes most indicate
that his philosophical stance
is towards the positivistic tradition. For example, from a Yinian
outlook, case study
researcher is supposed to “maximize four conditions related to
design quality: construct
validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability. How
investigators deal with these
aspects of quality control” (Yin, 2002, p. 19) is highly crucial
in every step of the case study
research. In his text, Yin continually suggests that emerging
researchers should keep these
four “yardsticks” in their mind in every phase of their inquiry
process so as to ensure the
quality in their investigation. Thus, from Crotty’s
understanding, a positivistic orientation
underlies Yinian perspective on case study research. Besides,
Yin’s view on the dichotomy
between quantitative and qualitative research traditions might
be indicative of why he would
rather not overtly touch upon his philosophical orientation. He
argues against those who
make distinctions between qualitative and quantitative
orientations due to the irreconcilable
philosophical disparities: “regardless of whether one favors
qualitative or quantitative
research, there is a strong and essential common ground

52. between the two” (Yin, 2002, p. 15).
He attends to the commonalities of the two research traditions
and pragmatically foregrounds
the common tools which can be functional and instrumental in
the design and methods of
case study he suggests, so he does not distinguish between
quantitative and qualitative case
study methods.
Unlike Yin who seems to evade making statements about his
epistemic commitments
or his preferred epistemology that should lead the case study
methodology, Stake allots a big
part of a chapter in his text to the explication of the
epistemological tradition to which he
suggests qualitative case study researchers should cling. For he
holds the claim that “How
case study researchers should contribute to reader experience
depends on their notions of
knowledge and reality” (Stake, 1995, p. 100). From a Stakian
viewpoint, constructivism and
existentialism (non-determinism) should be the epistemologies
that orient and inform the
qualitative case study research since “most contemporary
qualitative researchers hold that
knowledge is constructed rather than discovered” (Stake, 1995,
p. 99). Thus, he mainly
conceives of the qualitative case study researchers as
interpreters, and gatherers of
interpretations which require them to report their rendition or
construction of the constructed
reality or knowledge that they gather through their
investigation. In Stakian perspective,
qualitative researchers should expect another level of reality or
knowledge construction to
occur on the side of the readers of their report, in addition to

53. the above mentioned two levels.
This conclusion is also pertinent to his contention that “there
are multiple perspectives or
views of the case that need to be represented, but there is no
way to establish, beyond
contention, the best view” (Stake, 1995, p. 108).
In terms of her epistemological stance, Merriam seems to be
much closer to Stake’s
viewpoint than Yin’s. From her perspective, the epistemology
that should orient qualitative
case study is constructivism since she maintains that “the key
philosophical assumption upon
which all types of qualitative research are based is the view that
reality is constructed by
individuals interacting with their social worlds” (Merriam,
1998, p. 6). In the same vein, she
comments “that reality is not an objective entity; rather, there
are multiple interpretations of
reality” (Merriam, 1998, p. 22). Therefore, espousing this
philosophical assumption, the
primary interest of qualitative researchers is to understand the
meaning or knowledge
constructed by people. In other words, what really intrigues
qualitative researchers is the way
people make sense of their world and their experiences in this
world. Moreover, Merriam’s
conception of meaning making in the research process is aligned
with Stake’s multiple-
Bedrettin Yazan 138
layered reality or knowledge construction, but the former does
not expect the readers to get

54. involved in this construction or interpretation. She elucidates
the two lines of interpretation or
meaning making that the reality in the ultimate report has
undergone:
The researcher brings a construction of reality to the research
situation, which
interacts with other people’s constructions or interpretations of
the
phenomenon being studied. The final product of this type of
study is yet
another interpretation by the researcher of others’ views filtered
through his or
her own. (Merriam, 1998, p. 22)
After discussing the differing epistemological commitments of
the three case study
methodologists which permeate the three texts, I think this
section should close with a brief
description of my epistemological stance and how it impacts the
way I approach Yin’s,
Merriam’s and Stake’s renditions of case study. As an emerging
educational researcher,
epistemologically I position myself much closely subscribed to
constructivist paradigm. I
conceive knowledge as being socially constructed and emerging
from peoples’ social
practices; therefore, I conceptualize social reality as being
generated and constructed by
people and existing largely within people’s minds. I believe that
research endeavors are
geared towards seeking “for culturally derived and historically
situated interpretations of the
social life-world” (Crotty, 1998, p. 67). Due to this

55. philosophical stance, I find myself
epistemologically discordant with Yin and much more
consonant with Merriam and Stake.
However, since my orientation is also more aligned Deweyan
pragmatism, the current
analysis does embrace the instrumentality of the sets of
strategies, guidelines, and tools
suggested by Yin. That is, my constructivist leanings have not
led me solely to adhere to
Stake’s and Merriam’s renditions. Conversely, I attempted to
analyze and synthesize all three
authors’ works by considering their contributions to
conceptualizing, designing, and
conducting a “disciplined inquiry” (Shulman, 1988).
Defining Case and Case Study
In their texts on case study methodology, the three authors
diverge in the definition of
case and case study. For instance, Yin (2002) defines case as “a
contemporary phenomenon
within its real life context, especially when the boundaries
between a phenomenon and
context are not clear and the researcher has little control over
the phenomenon and context”
(p. 13). His definition of case reflects his advocacy for the case
study as a legitimate method
of research, too. The assumption underlying the definition is
that other research strategies
such as history, experiment and surveys are not capable of
inquiring into the case that
interests researchers. Therefore, they need an utterly novel
“comprehensive research strategy”

56. named case study (Yin, 2002, p. 14). Given this definition, from
Yinian point of view, case
study is an empirical inquiry that investigates the case or cases
conforming to the
abovementioned definition by addressing the “how” or “why”
questions concerning the
phenomenon of interest. He finds it particularly instrumental for
program evaluation. The rest
of his technical definition draws attention to the aspects of data
collection and analysis in
relation to the situation under study: in order to investigate a
distinct situation including
“many more variables of interest than data points,” case study
draws from manifold lines of
evidence for triangulating purposes and avails itself of “prior
development of theoretical
propositions to guide data collection and analysis” (Yin, 2002,
pp. 13-14). This attention is
indicative of how meticulous his approach is in terms of the
cohesion and consistency among
the design components and phases of case study as a research
strategy. From his stance, when
making every move or decision in the research process,
researchers should be able to provide
139 The Qualitative Report 2015
the logic behind it in conformity with the theoretical
propositions and the characteristics of
the case.
From a Stakian view of case study, a precise definition of cases
or case studies is not
possible since it is highly likely that the accurate definition of

57. cases or studies he can come
up with will not be aligned with the definition that the users of
case study in other disciplines
make. As for the definition of case, Stake (1995) agrees with
Louis Smith’s (1978) rendition:
researchers should view case as “a bounded system” and inquire
into it “as an object rather
than a process” (p. 2). He himself depicts some of the attributes
of case in his
conceptualization: case is “a specific, a complex, functioning
thing,” more specifically “an
integrated system” which “has a boundary and working parts”
and purposive (in social
sciences and human services) (p. 2). Accordingly, given this
definition, he notes that the
methods he delineates in his book would be more beneficial to
study programs and people
and less beneficial to study events and processes, which is
partially a point of intersection
with Yin who finds case study methods a best fit for program
evaluation. Moreover, Stake
mentions four defining characteristics of qualitative research
which are valid for qualitative
case studies as well: they are “holistic”, “empirical”,
“interpretive” and “emphatic”. Holistic
means that researchers should consider the interrelationship
between the phenomenon and its
contexts which is similar to the inseparable link Yin alludes to
while defining the case.
Empirical means that researchers base the study on their
observations in the field. Interpretive
means that researchers rest upon their intuition and see research
basically as a researcher-
subject interaction, which is compatible with the constructivist
epistemology. Lastly,
empathic means that researchers reflect the vicarious

58. experiences of the subjects in an emic
perspective.
For Merriam (1998), the defining characteristic of case study
research is the
delimitation of the case. Her definition is in line with Smith’s
(1978) view of case as a
bounded system and Stake’s view of case as an integrated
system. She sees “the case as a
thing, a single entity, a unit around which there are boundaries”
(p. 27). Then, case can be a
person, a program, a group, a specific policy and so on, which
represent a lot more
comprehensive list than Yin’s and Stake’s. In Merriam’s view
which is influenced by Miles
and Huberman’s (1994) understanding of “the case as a
phenomenon of some sort occurring
in a bounded context” (cited in Merriam, 1998, p. 27), as long
as researchers are able to
specify the phenomenon of interest and draw its boundaries or
“fence in” what they are going
to inquire, they can name it a case. In short, the definition she
presents is broader than Yin’s
and Stake’s and provides flexibility in utilizing qualitative case
study strategy to research a
much wider array of cases. As for the definition of case study
research, Merriam conceives
qualitative case study as “an intensive, holistic description and
analysis of a bounded
phenomenon such as a program, an institution, a person, a
process, or a social unit” (p. xiii).
In order to further differentiate case study method from
casework, case method, case history
(case records), she stresses its unique distinctive attributes:
Particularistic (it focuses on
particular situation, event, program, or phenomenon);

59. Descriptive (it yields a rich, thick
description of the phenomenon under study); Heuristic (it
illuminates the reader’s
understanding of phenomenon under study). Like Yin’s
advocacy for case study as a
legitimate research strategy, Merriam seems to bear the
responsibility to help case study
become a well-defined and well-structured research
methodology since she highlights its
quintessential and idiosyncratic features so that emergent
researchers can use it as a research
strategy separate from other qualitative research methodologies.
Bedrettin Yazan 140
Designing Case Study
Yin places a great emphasis on the design of the case study as
the subtitle of his book
suggests. As I mentioned while describing the purpose of his
book, he has observed that case
study does not have a “codified design” like the other research
strategies social scientists
employ, which is the reason why some investigators do not
grant it the merits as a notable
research method. In other words, he concludes that “Unlike
other research strategies, a
comprehensive “catalog” of research designs for case studies
has yet to be developed” (Yin,

60. 2002, p. 19) and he obviously commits himself to this
development. Therefore, he presents a
definitely detailed and comprehensive approach to the formation
of the design with a highly
scrupulous look at every step of the research process from
construction of the research
questions to collection and analysis of data in light of prior
theoretical propositions to the
reporting of the entire investigation.
Defining design essentially as “the logical sequence that
connects the empirical data
to a study's initial research questions and, ultimately, to its
conclusions,” (p. 20) Yin (2002)
suggests four types of design that case study researchers can
make use of. They include single
holistic design, single embedded design, multiple holistic
design and multiple embedded
design. Holistic designs require one unit of analysis, whereas
embedded designs require
multiple units of analysis. Yin advises the apprentice
researchers to select the design which
provides them with the maximum instrumentality to answer
their research questions, and to
consider the strengths and limitations of each design and the
certain pitfalls to be avoided
while implementing each of them.
From a Yinian perspective, case study research design is
comprised of five
components: a study’s questions; its propositions, if any; its
unit(s) of analysis; the logic
linking the data to the propositions; and the criteria for
interpreting the findings. While
designing the inquiry, the researcher is supposed to make sure
that these components are

61. cohesive to and consistent among each other. Yin directs extra
attention to the fourth and fifth
components which refer to the planning for the data analysis
steps in case study method. He
also advises that case study researchers plan these “least well-
developed components” very
conscientiously and rigorously in order that their inquiry has a
solid foundation for the
analytic operations (Yin, 2002, p. 26). In relation to these
components, Yin emphasizes the
necessity that researchers review the relevant literature and
include theoretical propositions
regarding the case under study before starting to conduct any
data collection, which
distinguishes it from such methodologies as grounded theory
and ethnography. As another
point about Yin’s rendition of case study design, he suggests
measuring the quality of the
design against four criteria which include construct validity,
internal validity, external
validity, and reliability. The maximization of these conditions
in every phase of the inquiry
process is incumbent upon researchers who want to develop
rigorous and robust case study
designs. Lastly, Yin places considerable emphasis on
preparation of a detailed design at the
outset of the research and advises that investigators make minor
changes in the design after
they begin data collection. However, if they need to make major
alterations, from Yin’s
perspective, researchers are supposed to go back to the first step
of the conceptualization and
start over to design the study.
Contrary to Yin who suggests a really tight and structured
design for case study

62. method, Stake argues for a flexible design which allows
researchers to make major changes
even after they proceed from design to research. The only initial
design he suggests concerns
the issues and issue questions, which will lead to the design of
the research questions. From a
Stakian point of view, investigators “use issues as conceptual
structure in order to force
attention to complexity and contextuality [and] … because
issues draw us toward observing,
even teasing out, the problems of the case, the conflictual
outpourings, the complex
141 The Qualitative Report 2015
backgrounds of human concern” (pp. 16-17). Stake gives
important advice about the
initiation of the two types of case studies: “for intrinsic case
study, case is dominant; the case
is of highest importance. For instrumental case study, issue is
dominant; we start and end
with issues dominant” (Stake, 1995, p. 16).
Although Stake (1995) does not suggest a specific point during
the research process
when data collection and analysis should start, his advice about
research questions indicates
that case study researchers need a set of two or three sharpened
or evolved issue questions
(research questions) that will “help structure the observation,
interviews, and document
review” (p. 20). Ten or 20 substantive questions trimmed to 2 or
3 through researchers’ initial
“contacts with the case or from experience or relevant

63. literatures” (p. 20). Stake’s obvious
flexibility in terms of case study design stems from his adoption
of the notion of “progressive
focusing” which Parlett and Hamilton (1972) first put forward.
This notion builds upon the
assumption that “the course of the study cannot be charted in
advance” (cited in Stake, 1998,
p. 22), which Yin would definitely oppose. Parlett and Hamilton
comment that “The
transition from stage to stage, as the investigation unfolds,
occurs as the problem areas
become progressively clarified and redefined” (cited in Stake,
1998, p. 22). When novice
investigators learn about Stake’s flexible approach, they can
find it favorable because it does
not require as much design preparation as Yin’s approach.
However, if they were to set out
their initial research journey without a detailed roadmap and
timeframe, they could get lost or
stuck at some point during the process. Even expert researchers
may need a very-well
prepared design before carrying out their inquiry. Stake’s
advice, as an advocate of
qualitative research, would lead to uncertainty and ambiguity on
the emerging researchers’
side since clear guidelines are missing.
Merriam’s (1998) text includes a chapter entitled “Designing
the study and selecting a
sample,” which complements not only Stake’s rendition of
qualitative research design but
also Yin’s well-structured case study design. She presents very
informative and clear
guidelines and advice regarding the review of the relevant
literature for the construction of
the theoretical framework that will guide the inquiry. Neither

64. Yin’s nor Stake’s parts on case
study design include such guidelines and advice. Novice case
study researchers need to write
literature reviews for their research projects or ultimately for
their dissertation. This review
helps them to conceptualize their inquiry and to construct a
theoretical framework on which
they can build their entire research process. They can consult
Merriam’s text to learn the
necessary instructions to properly conduct a literature review
which will inform their
theoretical framework.
Merriam (1998) presents step by step the process of designing
qualitative research in
a rather detailed fashion. Her discussion includes conducting
literature review, constructing a
theoretical framework, identifying a research problem, crafting
and sharpening research
questions, and selecting the sample (purposive sampling).
Merriam’s approach in case study
design is close neither to Yin’s nor Stake’s; it is a combination
of both approaches. The
design she recommends is flexible to a certain degree which is
the influence of her coming
from a qualitative tradition, but it is not as flexible as Stake’s
account. For example, Merriam
(1998) suggests that “Purposive or purposeful sampling usually
occurs before the data are
gathered, whereas theoretical sampling is done in conjunction
with data collection” (p. 66).
This suggestion is not acceptable in Yin’s perspective since he
maintains that case study
design should precede the data collection. Stake does not
mention any sampling strategies or
procedures for qualitative case study research; rather, he avoids

65. determining an exact point to
start data collection, which he considers as a feature of
qualitative tradition.
Bedrettin Yazan 142
Gathering Data
All three scholars contend that it is incumbent upon the case
study researchers to draw
their data from multiple sources to capture the case under study
in its complexity and entirety.
As for the tools to gather data, the epistemological tradition
they are subscribed to influence
their selection and how they conceive the entire data gathering
process. Yin becomes the
advocate of the combination of quantitative and qualitative
evidentiary sources because he
views them equally instrumental, whereas Stake and Merriam
suggest exclusive use of
qualitative data.
After describing the procedures that the case study inquirer is
supposed to follow
while designing the case study, Yin incorporates a chapter
which explains the preparatory
steps or the planning phase of data collection prior to discussing
the actual data gathering
procedures. This indicates one more time how much emphasis
he places on the process which

66. precedes the actual data collection or on the roadmap which
includes the detailed directions
that the researchers will need when they embark on their
journey of investigation. His
emphasis on the planning of case study pertains to the caution
he recurrently states: “In
actuality, the demands of a case study on your intellect, ego,
and emotions are far greater than
those of any other research strategy. This is because the data
collection procedures are not
routinized” (Yin, 2002, p. 58). While delineating the
preparation for data collection, Yin
capitalizes on the desired skills of case study investigator,
training for a specific case study,
the development of a protocol for the investigation, the
screening of the case study
nominations (making the final decision regarding the selection
of the case), and the conduct
of a pilot study. In this preparation, he highlights particularly
the pilot case study because he
assumes that it “will help you to refine your data collection
plans with respect to both the
content of the data and the procedures to be followed” (Yin,
2002, p. 79). In this aspect, Yin
complements Stake and Merriam who do not underline the
crucially important function of
pilot case study. Instead, they largely concentrate on the
piloting of each data collection
instrument.
From a Yinian perspective, case study research should rest upon
multiple sources of
evidence, with data needing to converge in a triangulating
fashion, and benefit from prior
development of theoretical propositions to guide data analysis
and collection. Yin suggests

67. the researchers make use of six evidentiary sources:
documentation, archival records,
interviews, direct observations, participant observation and
physical artifacts, each of which
has its own strengths and weaknesses. He also notes that these
are the most commonly used
ones and the complete list is much broader. His explanation of
data gathering instruments
includes “the procedures associated with using each source of
evidence” (Yin, 2002, p. 96),
that is, particularities of the data collection instruments which
researchers are supposed to get
acquainted with as part of their training. Then, he discusses the
general principles that apply
to all six tools and the entire data gathering process. These
general principles, which, he
claims, have been neglected in the past and discussed at length
in his book, include the use of
(a) multiple sources of evidence (evidence from two or more
sources, but converging on the
same set of facts or findings for the purpose of triangulation),
(b) a case study database (a
formal assembly of evidence distinct from the final case study
report which helps the novice
researchers understand how to handle or manage data), and (c) a
chain of evidence (explicit
links between the questions asked, the data collected, and the
conclusions drawn which helps
“follow the derivation of any evidence, ranging from initial
research questions to ultimate
case study conclusions;” Yin, 2002, p. 83). These “overriding
principles”, as he mentions, are
conducive to data validation which constitutes Yin’s first
priority in every phase of the
process to maximize the quality of the inquiry.

68. 143 The Qualitative Report 2015
Data gathering in Stakian outlook is extremely disparate from
Yin’s account. For
instance, as opposed to Yin who argues for the exact planning
for every step of the inquiry,
Stake (1995) argues “There is no particular moment when data
collection begins” (p. 49)
since data collection can lead to some fundamental alterations
in the inquiry process. From
Yin’s perspective, especially in order to avoid these major
modifications, case study
researchers should construct a conscientious design and
preparation prior to data collection.
Besides, Stake’s definition of legitimate data for case study is
much broader than Yin’s.
While the former contends that “A considerable proportion of
all data is impressionistic,
picked up informally as the researcher first becomes acquainted
with the case” (Stake, 1995,
p. 49), the latter would not acknowledge this “considerable
proportion” as data that
researchers can gather and use for analysis purposes. From my
view, deeming data as
impressionistic might bring about serious problems for
emerging researchers like me.
Impression is a notion which is fairly hard to define concretely,
so gleaning data from our
impressions about the case would be quite misleading for me
and other apprentice inquirers.
It is almost impossible to draw a clear-cut distinction between
what is my impression and
what it is not in a set of data.