Comparative Case Study

The comparative case study examines in rich detail the context and features of two or more
instances of specific phenomena. This form of case study still strives for the “thick description”
common in single case studies; however, the goal of comparative case studies is to discover
contrasts, similarities, or patterns across the cases. These discoveries may in turn contribute to
the development or the confirmation of theory.

Conceptual Overview and Discussion

The comparative case study can achieve any of the principal goals of the general case study
approach and is not limited in terms of descriptive, exploratory, or explanatory goals. Within this
broad context, the comparative aspect of the case study can have either a qualitative or
quantitative focus. Comparative case studies tend toward an examination of the typical rather
than the outlier or extreme case. Generally, research into the unusual, rare, or revelatory has
not been appropriate for multiple-case designs, simply because selected cases must
demonstrate enough commonality to allow for comparison.

Robert Yin, who has written extensively on case study research, states that comparative case
studies are multiple experiments and not instances of multiple subjects across a single
experiment. In case comparison, several cases serve as replication sites for extension or
surfacing of theory. Cases may also be viewed as a replication of the instance or phenomenon,
similar to an experiment in a quantitative undertaking. These comparisons can be structured as
either between-case or within-case studies. Within-case studies, for example, might include
several organizations within a specific industry, cohorts from a particular educational institution,
or negotiations between a single country and several allies.

The comparative case approach uses an iterative analysis of each case with final comparison of
emergent themes and explanations. The results of each analysis are not pooled, as the strategy
is that of multiple experiments, not multiple sampling. Comparison of cases is post hoc in
nature, and may be independent of the level of analysis of the case. A longitudinal design is also
possible, with one or more instances or sites serving as separate case studies over time. One
variation of this is a pilot study, which Robert Yin has used to define an analytical framework and
to refine instruments and research tactics.

The case survey is a variant of the comparative case study that views cases chosen for research
as a series of data points from which comparison and analysis will be possible. The case survey
produces a sample size of hundreds of cases, from which researchers draw out of the detail of
their analysis the critical components or factors that are interesting enough to warrant the
study. To find comparable sites for this type of research is challenging in any context, and the
depth of detail generated through the case survey produces two complicating effects in this form
of the case study: increased effort (translating into costs) and the risk of noncomparability due
to variations in significant contextual factors. The case survey represents the worst of a
quantitative-qualitative mixed approach, particularly when the factor of interest is unduly
simplified in order to make volumes of data more manageable.

Application

The flexibility inherent in between-sites or within-site designs, and longitudinal or cross-

dimension designs that presents multiple occurrences is offset by the nearly impossible
challenge of finding perfectly matched cases. The use of multiple instances within one
organization greatly reduces the confounding effects of different organization cultures and
contexts. Cynthia Hardy, Nelson Phillips, and Thomas Lawrence's study of Mère et Enfant in
Palestine (a small, nongovernmental organization [NGO] that provides nutritional services to
women and children in Palestine) is an example of a single organization with several, varying
collaborative partnerships. The examination of each case highlighted particular theoretical
categories (e.g., strategic, knowledge creation, and influence effects) that were then drawn
together through comparison to define a framework and then extend a tri-partite theory of
interorganization collaboration.

Special characteristics of a specific case are sometimes obvious only in comparison with others,
particularly when cases derive from different contexts. Selection of cases based on population
characteristics, dependant or independent variables, and measurement levels is an effective
point of departure, depending on whether the researcher is pursuing a most-similar or least-
similar design. Notwithstanding the qualitative nature of comparative case studies, history,
maturation, and instrumentation effects are all dangers in the case study comparison,
particularly in time-lagged, cross-case comparisons. Strategies to overcome these include
selecting cases from the same organization, same year, same study, or same context.

Comparative case studies are particularly useful for studying organizational change over time.
The longitudinal study by Aimin Yan and Barbara Gray that investigates bargaining power in joint
ventures illustrates a number of key aspects of this research strategy discussed above. The
authors use various forms of data collection, including interviews and archival data, as well as
analytic induction in the analysis of each joint venture case sequentially, making incremental
comparisons as coding categories appeared in their data. The study limits cases to
manufacturing ventures that are widely representative for the sector and that are comparable in
terms of duration and access to informants.

Critical Summary

Comparative case studies extend the value of the case study approach through iterative model-
building and comparison. The case's rich description on a limited number of variables enables a
depth of analysis by providing an opportunity to determine patterns in the data that add or
extend the theory application or enrich and refine the theoretical framework. The challenge is to
return to the comparative level for final conclusions and to ensure that the framework for
comparison is theoretically sound.

Shelagh Campbell

Further Readings

Hardy, C. , Phillips, N. , and Lawrence, T. Resources, knowledge and influence: The

organizational effects of interorganizational collaboration. Journal of Management Studies vol. 20
no. (2) (2003). pp. 321–347.

Kaarbo, J. and Beasley, R. K. A practical guide to the comparative case study method in political
psychology. Political Psychology vol. 20 no. (2) (1999). pp. 369–391.

Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative
strategies .Berkley, Los Angeles, & London: University of California Press.

Yan, A. and Gray, B. Bargaining power, management control, and performance in United States-
China joint ventures: A comparative case study. Academy of Management Journal vol. 37 no. (6)
(1994). pp. 1478–1517.

Entry Citation:

Campbell, Shelagh. " Comparative Case Study." Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. 2009.
SAGE Publications. 10 Apr. 2010.
<http://www.sageereference.com/casestudy/Article_n64.html>.

© SAGE Publications, Inc.