The Case Study
Chapter -Four
Syllabus topic 5, "Research Methods"
Pages 379 to 381 of 543
In one line
A case study takes one unit and studies it in depth from every angle, and its value is that it shows how the parts of a situation fit together, which counting never does.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: the case study method is the intensive investigation of a single unit, whether a person, an institution, a community, an event or a process, using all available sources of information in order to understand it as a whole; it produces depth rather than breadth, is suited to complex situations whose elements cannot be separated, and generates hypotheses for wider testing, but its findings cannot by themselves be generalised beyond the unit studied.
What it is not
It is not a case comment. A law student hearing case study thinks of an analysis of a judgment, which is doctrinal work, chapter 840. The case study of this chapter is a social science method and its unit is not necessarily a case at all.
It is not an anecdote. An anecdote is an illustration; a case study is a systematic investigation with a design, sources and a record.
And it is not a small survey. A survey asks a few questions of many units; a case study asks many questions of one.
The unit
A person. A litigant, an undertrial, a first generation law student.
An institution. One legal services clinic, one law college, one District Legal Services Authority.
A community. One settlement, one village.
An event. One Lok Adalat sitting, one legal literacy camp.
Or a process. One case from complaint to disposal, followed all the way through, which is one of the most illuminating studies available in Indian legal research and is very rarely done.
Its sources
Everything available about that unit, which is the defining feature of the method.
Records. The clinic's register, the case file, the college's examination records.
Interviews with everybody connected: the person, the officials, the lawyers, the family.
Observation of the unit over time.
Documents. Notices, orders, receipts, letters.
And where relevant, the legal materials, since a case study of a legal process must state the law correctly, chapter 840.
Its merits
Depth. It reaches the detail no survey can carry, and the detail is often where the explanation is.
It shows how things connect. A survey establishes that people do not use a clinic; a case study of one clinic shows the sequence by which a person arrives, waits, is asked for a document they do not have, and leaves.
It handles complexity. Where many factors operate together and cannot be separated, a method that studies them together is the only honest one.
It generates hypotheses. This is its most defensible scientific role: one case suggests what to test on many, chapter 820.
The Case Study
It is feasible for a student. One clinic, one court, one process, within reach in a semester with no budget.
And it produces material that persuades, because a specific account of one person's experience is remembered where a proportion is not.
Its demerits
It cannot be generalised. One clinic is one clinic. The temptation to write as though the case were typical is the method's characteristic failure.
Selection decides the result. A case chosen because it is striking is chosen because it is unrepresentative.
The researcher's judgment is everywhere: in what to look at, what to record and what to treat as significant.
It is hard to check. A reader can only inspect the researcher's records, chapter 870.
It is slow.
And it raises the sharpest ethical questions in this module, because a detailed account of one person or one institution may identify them however carefully names are removed. Chapter 1400.
Doing it properly
State why this unit. Typical, extreme, critical, or convenient, and say which. A case chosen because it was accessible is legitimate if the choice is disclosed.
Use more than one source. Records against interview against observation, which is triangulation, chapter 870.
Keep a chronology. Most case studies are about a sequence, and the sequence is what gets lost.
Separate the account from the interpretation. Write what happened first, and what it means afterwards.
State what could not be established.
And protect the unit. Change identifying details, or obtain consent to use them, and consider whether the institution can be identified even without being named, which in a district with one clinic it can.
A worked example
A case study of one process: a maintenance claim from first approach to first effective hearing.
The unit. One claimant, followed with her consent over four months.
Why this unit. Chosen as typical of the clinic's caseload rather than as striking, and the basis of the choice recorded.
Sources. The clinic register entry; the application; interviews with the claimant after each step; the panel lawyer's account; observation of two hearings; and the documents she was asked for.
The chronology. First visit; asked for a document she did not have; three weeks obtaining it; application scrutinised under regulation 7 of the 2010 Regulations; panel lawyer assigned; filing; two adjournments; first effective hearing.
What the study finds that a survey could not. That the twenty-one days lost obtaining the document were the largest single delay; that she made seven journeys, of which three achieved nothing; and that at the second adjournment she nearly abandoned the claim.
What it cannot say. That this is typical, unless somebody counts.
The Case Study
And what it is good for. It generates exactly the hypothesis a survey should then test: that document procurement, not court delay, is the largest barrier at the entry stage. That is the method used correctly, chapter 820.
Quick revision
A case study is the intensive investigation of a single unit, using all available sources, to understand it as a whole. Not a case comment, not an anecdote, and not a small survey.
The unit may be a person, an institution, a community, an event or a process.
Merits: depth; it shows how things connect; it handles complexity; it generates hypotheses for wider testing; it is feasible for a student; and it persuades.
Demerits: it cannot be generalised; selection decides the result; the researcher's judgment is everywhere; it is hard to check; it is slow; and it raises the sharpest ethical questions, because detail identifies.
Doing it properly: state why this unit; use more than one source; keep a chronology; separate account from interpretation; state what could not be established; and protect the unit, remembering that an institution may be identifiable without being named.
Test yourself
1. Distinguish a case study from a case comment and from a survey. A case comment is doctrinal analysis of a judgment. A survey asks a few questions of many units. A case study asks many questions of one unit, whether a person, institution, community, event or process, using all available sources to understand it as a whole.
2. What is the method's most defensible scientific role? Generating hypotheses. One unit studied in depth suggests what should be tested across many, which is why a case study is properly followed by a survey rather than presented as though it established a general proposition.
3. Name three things that must be done for a case study to be sound. State why that unit was chosen, whether as typical, extreme, critical or convenient; use more than one source and check them against each other; and keep a chronology, since most case studies concern a sequence and the sequence is what gets lost.
4. Why are the ethical questions sharper here than for a survey? Because a detailed account of one person or one institution may identify them however carefully names are removed, and in a district with a single clinic or a single court the unit is identifiable from the description alone.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.