multiple case study design in qualitative research

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

The Multiple Case Study Design

DOI link for The Multiple Case Study Design

Get Citation

Most organizations today operate in volatile economic and social environments and qualitative research plays an essential role in investigating leadership and management problems. This unique volume offers novice and experienced researchers a brief, student-centric research methods text specifically devoted to the multiple case study design.

The multiple case study design is a valuable qualitative research tool in studying the links between the personal, social, behavioral, psychological, organizational, cultural, and environmental factors that guide organizational and leadership development. Case study research is essential for the in-depth study of participants' perspectives on the phenomenon within its natural context. Rigorously designed management and leadership case studies in the extant literature have a central focus on individual managers' and leaders' stories and their perceptions of the broader forces operating within and outside their organizations.

This is a comprehensive methodology book exploring the multiple case study design with step-by-step and easily accessible guidelines on the topic, making it especially valuable to researchers, academics, and students in the areas of business, management, and leadership.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 | 6  pages, a refresher on the philosophical foundations of academic research, chapter 2 | 6  pages, research methodologies, chapter 3 | 3  pages, the role of theory in qualitative research, chapter 4 | 6  pages, how does the novice researcher design a multiple case study, chapter 5 | 5  pages, the advantage of the multiple case study design for management researchers, chapter 6 | 6  pages, applying data collection methods in multiple case study research, chapter 7 | 9  pages, the data analysis process for multiple case study research, chapter 8 | 3  pages, extending theory with multiple case study design, chapter 9 | 7  pages, incorporating multiple case design and methodologies into teaching and professional practice, chapter 10 | 9  pages, writing and publishing multiple case study research, chapter 11 | 2  pages, concluding thoughts.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Sage Choice

Continuing to enhance the quality of case study methodology in health services research

Shannon l. sibbald.

1 Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

2 Department of Family Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

3 The Schulich Interfaculty Program in Public Health, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

Stefan Paciocco

Meghan fournie, rachelle van asseldonk, tiffany scurr.

Case study methodology has grown in popularity within Health Services Research (HSR). However, its use and merit as a methodology are frequently criticized due to its flexible approach and inconsistent application. Nevertheless, case study methodology is well suited to HSR because it can track and examine complex relationships, contexts, and systems as they evolve. Applied appropriately, it can help generate information on how multiple forms of knowledge come together to inform decision-making within healthcare contexts. In this article, we aim to demystify case study methodology by outlining its philosophical underpinnings and three foundational approaches. We provide literature-based guidance to decision-makers, policy-makers, and health leaders on how to engage in and critically appraise case study design. We advocate that researchers work in collaboration with health leaders to detail their research process with an aim of strengthening the validity and integrity of case study for its continued and advanced use in HSR.

Introduction

The popularity of case study research methodology in Health Services Research (HSR) has grown over the past 40 years. 1 This may be attributed to a shift towards the use of implementation research and a newfound appreciation of contextual factors affecting the uptake of evidence-based interventions within diverse settings. 2 Incorporating context-specific information on the delivery and implementation of programs can increase the likelihood of success. 3 , 4 Case study methodology is particularly well suited for implementation research in health services because it can provide insight into the nuances of diverse contexts. 5 , 6 In 1999, Yin 7 published a paper on how to enhance the quality of case study in HSR, which was foundational for the emergence of case study in this field. Yin 7 maintains case study is an appropriate methodology in HSR because health systems are constantly evolving, and the multiple affiliations and diverse motivations are difficult to track and understand with traditional linear methodologies.

Despite its increased popularity, there is debate whether a case study is a methodology (ie, a principle or process that guides research) or a method (ie, a tool to answer research questions). Some criticize case study for its high level of flexibility, perceiving it as less rigorous, and maintain that it generates inadequate results. 8 Others have noted issues with quality and consistency in how case studies are conducted and reported. 9 Reporting is often varied and inconsistent, using a mix of approaches such as case reports, case findings, and/or case study. Authors sometimes use incongruent methods of data collection and analysis or use the case study as a default when other methodologies do not fit. 9 , 10 Despite these criticisms, case study methodology is becoming more common as a viable approach for HSR. 11 An abundance of articles and textbooks are available to guide researchers through case study research, including field-specific resources for business, 12 , 13 nursing, 14 and family medicine. 15 However, there remains confusion and a lack of clarity on the key tenets of case study methodology.

Several common philosophical underpinnings have contributed to the development of case study research 1 which has led to different approaches to planning, data collection, and analysis. This presents challenges in assessing quality and rigour for researchers conducting case studies and stakeholders reading results.

This article discusses the various approaches and philosophical underpinnings to case study methodology. Our goal is to explain it in a way that provides guidance for decision-makers, policy-makers, and health leaders on how to understand, critically appraise, and engage in case study research and design, as such guidance is largely absent in the literature. This article is by no means exhaustive or authoritative. Instead, we aim to provide guidance and encourage dialogue around case study methodology, facilitating critical thinking around the variety of approaches and ways quality and rigour can be bolstered for its use within HSR.

Purpose of case study methodology

Case study methodology is often used to develop an in-depth, holistic understanding of a specific phenomenon within a specified context. 11 It focuses on studying one or multiple cases over time and uses an in-depth analysis of multiple information sources. 16 , 17 It is ideal for situations including, but not limited to, exploring under-researched and real-life phenomena, 18 especially when the contexts are complex and the researcher has little control over the phenomena. 19 , 20 Case studies can be useful when researchers want to understand how interventions are implemented in different contexts, and how context shapes the phenomenon of interest.

In addition to demonstrating coherency with the type of questions case study is suited to answer, there are four key tenets to case study methodologies: (1) be transparent in the paradigmatic and theoretical perspectives influencing study design; (2) clearly define the case and phenomenon of interest; (3) clearly define and justify the type of case study design; and (4) use multiple data collection sources and analysis methods to present the findings in ways that are consistent with the methodology and the study’s paradigmatic base. 9 , 16 The goal is to appropriately match the methods to empirical questions and issues and not to universally advocate any single approach for all problems. 21

Approaches to case study methodology

Three authors propose distinct foundational approaches to case study methodology positioned within different paradigms: Yin, 19 , 22 Stake, 5 , 23 and Merriam 24 , 25 ( Table 1 ). Yin is strongly post-positivist whereas Stake and Merriam are grounded in a constructivist paradigm. Researchers should locate their research within a paradigm that explains the philosophies guiding their research 26 and adhere to the underlying paradigmatic assumptions and key tenets of the appropriate author’s methodology. This will enhance the consistency and coherency of the methods and findings. However, researchers often do not report their paradigmatic position, nor do they adhere to one approach. 9 Although deliberately blending methodologies may be defensible and methodologically appropriate, more often it is done in an ad hoc and haphazard way, without consideration for limitations.

Cross-analysis of three case study approaches, adapted from Yazan 2015

The post-positive paradigm postulates there is one reality that can be objectively described and understood by “bracketing” oneself from the research to remove prejudice or bias. 27 Yin focuses on general explanation and prediction, emphasizing the formulation of propositions, akin to hypothesis testing. This approach is best suited for structured and objective data collection 9 , 11 and is often used for mixed-method studies.

Constructivism assumes that the phenomenon of interest is constructed and influenced by local contexts, including the interaction between researchers, individuals, and their environment. 27 It acknowledges multiple interpretations of reality 24 constructed within the context by the researcher and participants which are unlikely to be replicated, should either change. 5 , 20 Stake and Merriam’s constructivist approaches emphasize a story-like rendering of a problem and an iterative process of constructing the case study. 7 This stance values researcher reflexivity and transparency, 28 acknowledging how researchers’ experiences and disciplinary lenses influence their assumptions and beliefs about the nature of the phenomenon and development of the findings.

Defining a case

A key tenet of case study methodology often underemphasized in literature is the importance of defining the case and phenomenon. Researches should clearly describe the case with sufficient detail to allow readers to fully understand the setting and context and determine applicability. Trying to answer a question that is too broad often leads to an unclear definition of the case and phenomenon. 20 Cases should therefore be bound by time and place to ensure rigor and feasibility. 6

Yin 22 defines a case as “a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context,” (p13) which may contain a single unit of analysis, including individuals, programs, corporations, or clinics 29 (holistic), or be broken into sub-units of analysis, such as projects, meetings, roles, or locations within the case (embedded). 30 Merriam 24 and Stake 5 similarly define a case as a single unit studied within a bounded system. Stake 5 , 23 suggests bounding cases by contexts and experiences where the phenomenon of interest can be a program, process, or experience. However, the line between the case and phenomenon can become muddy. For guidance, Stake 5 , 23 describes the case as the noun or entity and the phenomenon of interest as the verb, functioning, or activity of the case.

Designing the case study approach

Yin’s approach to a case study is rooted in a formal proposition or theory which guides the case and is used to test the outcome. 1 Stake 5 advocates for a flexible design and explicitly states that data collection and analysis may commence at any point. Merriam’s 24 approach blends both Yin and Stake’s, allowing the necessary flexibility in data collection and analysis to meet the needs.

Yin 30 proposed three types of case study approaches—descriptive, explanatory, and exploratory. Each can be designed around single or multiple cases, creating six basic case study methodologies. Descriptive studies provide a rich description of the phenomenon within its context, which can be helpful in developing theories. To test a theory or determine cause and effect relationships, researchers can use an explanatory design. An exploratory model is typically used in the pilot-test phase to develop propositions (eg, Sibbald et al. 31 used this approach to explore interprofessional network complexity). Despite having distinct characteristics, the boundaries between case study types are flexible with significant overlap. 30 Each has five key components: (1) research question; (2) proposition; (3) unit of analysis; (4) logical linking that connects the theory with proposition; and (5) criteria for analyzing findings.

Contrary to Yin, Stake 5 believes the research process cannot be planned in its entirety because research evolves as it is performed. Consequently, researchers can adjust the design of their methods even after data collection has begun. Stake 5 classifies case studies into three categories: intrinsic, instrumental, and collective/multiple. Intrinsic case studies focus on gaining a better understanding of the case. These are often undertaken when the researcher has an interest in a specific case. Instrumental case study is used when the case itself is not of the utmost importance, and the issue or phenomenon (ie, the research question) being explored becomes the focus instead (eg, Paciocco 32 used an instrumental case study to evaluate the implementation of a chronic disease management program). 5 Collective designs are rooted in an instrumental case study and include multiple cases to gain an in-depth understanding of the complexity and particularity of a phenomenon across diverse contexts. 5 , 23 In collective designs, studying similarities and differences between the cases allows the phenomenon to be understood more intimately (for examples of this in the field, see van Zelm et al. 33 and Burrows et al. 34 In addition, Sibbald et al. 35 present an example where a cross-case analysis method is used to compare instrumental cases).

Merriam’s approach is flexible (similar to Stake) as well as stepwise and linear (similar to Yin). She advocates for conducting a literature review before designing the study to better understand the theoretical underpinnings. 24 , 25 Unlike Stake or Yin, Merriam proposes a step-by-step guide for researchers to design a case study. These steps include performing a literature review, creating a theoretical framework, identifying the problem, creating and refining the research question(s), and selecting a study sample that fits the question(s). 24 , 25 , 36

Data collection and analysis

Using multiple data collection methods is a key characteristic of all case study methodology; it enhances the credibility of the findings by allowing different facets and views of the phenomenon to be explored. 23 Common methods include interviews, focus groups, observation, and document analysis. 5 , 37 By seeking patterns within and across data sources, a thick description of the case can be generated to support a greater understanding and interpretation of the whole phenomenon. 5 , 17 , 20 , 23 This technique is called triangulation and is used to explore cases with greater accuracy. 5 Although Stake 5 maintains case study is most often used in qualitative research, Yin 17 supports a mix of both quantitative and qualitative methods to triangulate data. This deliberate convergence of data sources (or mixed methods) allows researchers to find greater depth in their analysis and develop converging lines of inquiry. For example, case studies evaluating interventions commonly use qualitative interviews to describe the implementation process, barriers, and facilitators paired with a quantitative survey of comparative outcomes and effectiveness. 33 , 38 , 39

Yin 30 describes analysis as dependent on the chosen approach, whether it be (1) deductive and rely on theoretical propositions; (2) inductive and analyze data from the “ground up”; (3) organized to create a case description; or (4) used to examine plausible rival explanations. According to Yin’s 40 approach to descriptive case studies, carefully considering theory development is an important part of study design. “Theory” refers to field-relevant propositions, commonly agreed upon assumptions, or fully developed theories. 40 Stake 5 advocates for using the researcher’s intuition and impression to guide analysis through a categorical aggregation and direct interpretation. Merriam 24 uses six different methods to guide the “process of making meaning” (p178) : (1) ethnographic analysis; (2) narrative analysis; (3) phenomenological analysis; (4) constant comparative method; (5) content analysis; and (6) analytic induction.

Drawing upon a theoretical or conceptual framework to inform analysis improves the quality of case study and avoids the risk of description without meaning. 18 Using Stake’s 5 approach, researchers rely on protocols and previous knowledge to help make sense of new ideas; theory can guide the research and assist researchers in understanding how new information fits into existing knowledge.

Practical applications of case study research

Columbia University has recently demonstrated how case studies can help train future health leaders. 41 Case studies encompass components of systems thinking—considering connections and interactions between components of a system, alongside the implications and consequences of those relationships—to equip health leaders with tools to tackle global health issues. 41 Greenwood 42 evaluated Indigenous peoples’ relationship with the healthcare system in British Columbia and used a case study to challenge and educate health leaders across the country to enhance culturally sensitive health service environments.

An important but often omitted step in case study research is an assessment of quality and rigour. We recommend using a framework or set of criteria to assess the rigour of the qualitative research. Suitable resources include Caelli et al., 43 Houghten et al., 44 Ravenek and Rudman, 45 and Tracy. 46

New directions in case study

Although “pragmatic” case studies (ie, utilizing practical and applicable methods) have existed within psychotherapy for some time, 47 , 48 only recently has the applicability of pragmatism as an underlying paradigmatic perspective been considered in HSR. 49 This is marked by uptake of pragmatism in Randomized Control Trials, recognizing that “gold standard” testing conditions do not reflect the reality of clinical settings 50 , 51 nor do a handful of epistemologically guided methodologies suit every research inquiry.

Pragmatism positions the research question as the basis for methodological choices, rather than a theory or epistemology, allowing researchers to pursue the most practical approach to understanding a problem or discovering an actionable solution. 52 Mixed methods are commonly used to create a deeper understanding of the case through converging qualitative and quantitative data. 52 Pragmatic case study is suited to HSR because its flexibility throughout the research process accommodates complexity, ever-changing systems, and disruptions to research plans. 49 , 50 Much like case study, pragmatism has been criticized for its flexibility and use when other approaches are seemingly ill-fit. 53 , 54 Similarly, authors argue that this results from a lack of investigation and proper application rather than a reflection of validity, legitimizing the need for more exploration and conversation among researchers and practitioners. 55

Although occasionally misunderstood as a less rigourous research methodology, 8 case study research is highly flexible and allows for contextual nuances. 5 , 6 Its use is valuable when the researcher desires a thorough understanding of a phenomenon or case bound by context. 11 If needed, multiple similar cases can be studied simultaneously, or one case within another. 16 , 17 There are currently three main approaches to case study, 5 , 17 , 24 each with their own definitions of a case, ontological and epistemological paradigms, methodologies, and data collection and analysis procedures. 37

Individuals’ experiences within health systems are influenced heavily by contextual factors, participant experience, and intricate relationships between different organizations and actors. 55 Case study research is well suited for HSR because it can track and examine these complex relationships and systems as they evolve over time. 6 , 7 It is important that researchers and health leaders using this methodology understand its key tenets and how to conduct a proper case study. Although there are many examples of case study in action, they are often under-reported and, when reported, not rigorously conducted. 9 Thus, decision-makers and health leaders should use these examples with caution. The proper reporting of case studies is necessary to bolster their credibility in HSR literature and provide readers sufficient information to critically assess the methodology. We also call on health leaders who frequently use case studies 56 – 58 to report them in the primary research literature.

The purpose of this article is to advocate for the continued and advanced use of case study in HSR and to provide literature-based guidance for decision-makers, policy-makers, and health leaders on how to engage in, read, and interpret findings from case study research. As health systems progress and evolve, the application of case study research will continue to increase as researchers and health leaders aim to capture the inherent complexities, nuances, and contextual factors. 7

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Research Guides

Multiple Case Studies

Nadia Alqahtani and Pengtong Qu

Description

The case study approach is popular across disciplines in education, anthropology, sociology, psychology, medicine, law, and political science (Creswell, 2013). It is both a research method and a strategy (Creswell, 2013; Yin, 2017). In this type of research design, a case can be an individual, an event, or an entity, as determined by the research questions. There are two variants of the case study: the single-case study and the multiple-case study. The former design can be used to study and understand an unusual case, a critical case, a longitudinal case, or a revelatory case. On the other hand, a multiple-case study includes two or more cases or replications across the cases to investigate the same phenomena (Lewis-Beck, Bryman & Liao, 2003; Yin, 2017). …a multiple-case study includes two or more cases or replications across the cases to investigate the same phenomena

The difference between the single- and multiple-case study is the research design; however, they are within the same methodological framework (Yin, 2017). Multiple cases are selected so that “individual case studies either (a) predict similar results (a literal replication) or (b) predict contrasting results but for anticipatable reasons (a theoretical replication)” (p. 55). When the purpose of the study is to compare and replicate the findings, the multiple-case study produces more compelling evidence so that the study is considered more robust than the single-case study (Yin, 2017).

To write a multiple-case study, a summary of individual cases should be reported, and researchers need to draw cross-case conclusions and form a cross-case report (Yin, 2017). With evidence from multiple cases, researchers may have generalizable findings and develop theories (Lewis-Beck, Bryman & Liao, 2003).

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Lewis-Beck, M., Bryman, A. E., & Liao, T. F. (2003). The Sage encyclopedia of social science research methods . Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods . Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Key Research Books and Articles on Multiple Case Study Methodology

Yin discusses how to decide if a case study should be used in research. Novice researchers can learn about research design, data collection, and data analysis of different types of case studies, as well as writing a case study report.

Chapter 2 introduces four major types of research design in case studies: holistic single-case design, embedded single-case design, holistic multiple-case design, and embedded multiple-case design. Novice researchers will learn about the definitions and characteristics of different designs. This chapter also teaches researchers how to examine and discuss the reliability and validity of the designs.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches . Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

This book compares five different qualitative research designs: narrative research, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, and case study. It compares the characteristics, data collection, data analysis and representation, validity, and writing-up procedures among five inquiry approaches using texts with tables. For each approach, the author introduced the definition, features, types, and procedures and contextualized these components in a study, which was conducted through the same method. Each chapter ends with a list of relevant readings of each inquiry approach.

This book invites readers to compare these five qualitative methods and see the value of each approach. Readers can consider which approach would serve for their research contexts and questions, as well as how to design their research and conduct the data analysis based on their choice of research method.

Günes, E., & Bahçivan, E. (2016). A multiple case study of preservice science teachers’ TPACK: Embedded in a comprehensive belief system. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11 (15), 8040-8054.

In this article, the researchers showed the importance of using technological opportunities in improving the education process and how they enhanced the students’ learning in science education. The study examined the connection between “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge” (TPACK) and belief system in a science teaching context. The researchers used the multiple-case study to explore the effect of TPACK on the preservice science teachers’ (PST) beliefs on their TPACK level. The participants were three teachers with the low, medium, and high level of TPACK confidence. Content analysis was utilized to analyze the data, which were collected by individual semi-structured interviews with the participants about their lesson plans. The study first discussed each case, then compared features and relations across cases. The researchers found that there was a positive relationship between PST’s TPACK confidence and TPACK level; when PST had higher TPACK confidence, the participant had a higher competent TPACK level and vice versa.

Recent Dissertations Using Multiple Case Study Methodology

Milholland, E. S. (2015). A multiple case study of instructors utilizing Classroom Response Systems (CRS) to achieve pedagogical goals . Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order Number 3706380)

The researcher of this study critiques the use of Classroom Responses Systems by five instructors who employed this program five years ago in their classrooms. The researcher conducted the multiple-case study methodology and categorized themes. He interviewed each instructor with questions about their initial pedagogical goals, the changes in pedagogy during teaching, and the teaching techniques individuals used while practicing the CRS. The researcher used the multiple-case study with five instructors. He found that all instructors changed their goals during employing CRS; they decided to reduce the time of lecturing and to spend more time engaging students in interactive activities. This study also demonstrated that CRS was useful for the instructors to achieve multiple learning goals; all the instructors provided examples of the positive aspect of implementing CRS in their classrooms.

Li, C. L. (2010). The emergence of fairy tale literacy: A multiple case study on promoting critical literacy of children through a juxtaposed reading of classic fairy tales and their contemporary disruptive variants . Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order Number 3572104)

To explore how children’s development of critical literacy can be impacted by their reactions to fairy tales, the author conducted a multiple-case study with 4 cases, in which each child was a unit of analysis. Two Chinese immigrant children (a boy and a girl) and two American children (a boy and a girl) at the second or third grade were recruited in the study. The data were collected through interviews, discussions on fairy tales, and drawing pictures. The analysis was conducted within both individual cases and cross cases. Across four cases, the researcher found that the young children’s’ knowledge of traditional fairy tales was built upon mass-media based adaptations. The children believed that the representations on mass-media were the original stories, even though fairy tales are included in the elementary school curriculum. The author also found that introducing classic versions of fairy tales increased children’s knowledge in the genre’s origin, which would benefit their understanding of the genre. She argued that introducing fairy tales can be the first step to promote children’s development of critical literacy.

Asher, K. C. (2014). Mediating occupational socialization and occupational individuation in teacher education: A multiple case study of five elementary pre-service student teachers . Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order Number 3671989)

This study portrayed five pre-service teachers’ teaching experience in their student teaching phase and explored how pre-service teachers mediate their occupational socialization with occupational individuation. The study used the multiple-case study design and recruited five pre-service teachers from a Midwestern university as five cases. Qualitative data were collected through interviews, classroom observations, and field notes. The author implemented the case study analysis and found five strategies that the participants used to mediate occupational socialization with occupational individuation. These strategies were: 1) hindering from practicing their beliefs, 2) mimicking the styles of supervising teachers, 3) teaching in the ways in alignment with school’s existing practice, 4) enacting their own ideas, and 5) integrating and balancing occupational socialization and occupational individuation. The study also provided recommendations and implications to policymakers and educators in teacher education so that pre-service teachers can be better supported.

Multiple Case Studies Copyright © 2019 by Nadia Alqahtani and Pengtong Qu is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Multiple Case Research Design

• First Online: 10 November 2021

Cite this chapter

• Stefan Hunziker 3 &
• Michael Blankenagel 3  

5532 Accesses

6 Citations

This chapter addresses the peculiarities, characteristics, and major fallacies of multiple case research designs. The major advantage of multiple case research lies in cross-case analysis. A multiple case research design shifts the focus from understanding a single case to the differences and similarities between cases. Thus, it is not just conducting more (second, third, etc.) case studies. Rather, it is the next step in developing a theory about factors driving differences and similarities. Also, researchers find relevant information on how to write a multiple case research design paper and learn about typical methodologies used for this research design. The chapter closes with referring to overlapping and adjacent research designs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bruns, W. J., & McKinnon, S. M. (1993). Information and managers: A field study. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 5 , 84–108.

Google Scholar  

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1), 25–32.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ferreira, L. D. & Merchant, K. A. (1992). Field research in management accounting and control: A review and evaluation . Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Keating, P. J. (1995). A framework for classifying and evaluating the theoretical contributions of case research in management accounting. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 7 , 66–86.

Lillis, A. M., & Mundy, J. (2005). Cross-sectional field studies in management accounting research—closing the gaps between surveys and case studies. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 17 (1), 119–141.

Ragin, C. C. (2009). Reflections on casing and case-oriented research (pp. 522–534). The Sage handbook of case-based method.

Ridder, H.-G. (2017). The theory contribution of case study research designs. Business Research, 10 (2), 281–305.

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).

Vaughan, D. (1992). Theory elaboration: The heuristics of case analysis. What is a case?. In C.C. Ragin & H.S. Becker (Eds.), Exploring the foundations of social inquiry (pp. 173–202). Cambridge University Press.

Walsham, G. (2006). Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems, 15 (3), 320–330.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research. Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Wirtschaft/IFZ – Campus Zug-Rotkreuz, Hochschule Luzern, Zug-Rotkreuz, Zug , Switzerland

Stefan Hunziker & Michael Blankenagel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Hunziker .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Hunziker, S., Blankenagel, M. (2021). Multiple Case Research Design. In: Research Design in Business and Management. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34357-6_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34357-6_9

Published : 10 November 2021

Publisher Name : Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

Print ISBN : 978-3-658-34356-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-658-34357-6

eBook Packages : Business and Economics (German Language)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Privacy Policy

Home » Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Table of Contents

A case study is a research method that involves an in-depth examination and analysis of a particular phenomenon or case, such as an individual, organization, community, event, or situation.

It is a qualitative research approach that aims to provide a detailed and comprehensive understanding of the case being studied. Case studies typically involve multiple sources of data, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts, which are analyzed using various techniques, such as content analysis, thematic analysis, and grounded theory. The findings of a case study are often used to develop theories, inform policy or practice, or generate new research questions.

Types of Case Study

Types and Methods of Case Study are as follows:

Single-Case Study

A single-case study is an in-depth analysis of a single case. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to understand a specific phenomenon in detail.

For Example , A researcher might conduct a single-case study on a particular individual to understand their experiences with a particular health condition or a specific organization to explore their management practices. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of a single-case study are often used to generate new research questions, develop theories, or inform policy or practice.

Multiple-Case Study

A multiple-case study involves the analysis of several cases that are similar in nature. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to identify similarities and differences between the cases.

For Example, a researcher might conduct a multiple-case study on several companies to explore the factors that contribute to their success or failure. The researcher collects data from each case, compares and contrasts the findings, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as comparative analysis or pattern-matching. The findings of a multiple-case study can be used to develop theories, inform policy or practice, or generate new research questions.

Exploratory Case Study

An exploratory case study is used to explore a new or understudied phenomenon. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to generate hypotheses or theories about the phenomenon.

For Example, a researcher might conduct an exploratory case study on a new technology to understand its potential impact on society. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as grounded theory or content analysis. The findings of an exploratory case study can be used to generate new research questions, develop theories, or inform policy or practice.

Descriptive Case Study

A descriptive case study is used to describe a particular phenomenon in detail. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to provide a comprehensive account of the phenomenon.

For Example, a researcher might conduct a descriptive case study on a particular community to understand its social and economic characteristics. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of a descriptive case study can be used to inform policy or practice or generate new research questions.

Instrumental Case Study

An instrumental case study is used to understand a particular phenomenon that is instrumental in achieving a particular goal. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to understand the role of the phenomenon in achieving the goal.

For Example, a researcher might conduct an instrumental case study on a particular policy to understand its impact on achieving a particular goal, such as reducing poverty. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of an instrumental case study can be used to inform policy or practice or generate new research questions.

Case Study Data Collection Methods

Here are some common data collection methods for case studies:

Interviews involve asking questions to individuals who have knowledge or experience relevant to the case study. Interviews can be structured (where the same questions are asked to all participants) or unstructured (where the interviewer follows up on the responses with further questions). Interviews can be conducted in person, over the phone, or through video conferencing.

Observations

Observations involve watching and recording the behavior and activities of individuals or groups relevant to the case study. Observations can be participant (where the researcher actively participates in the activities) or non-participant (where the researcher observes from a distance). Observations can be recorded using notes, audio or video recordings, or photographs.

Documents can be used as a source of information for case studies. Documents can include reports, memos, emails, letters, and other written materials related to the case study. Documents can be collected from the case study participants or from public sources.

Surveys involve asking a set of questions to a sample of individuals relevant to the case study. Surveys can be administered in person, over the phone, through mail or email, or online. Surveys can be used to gather information on attitudes, opinions, or behaviors related to the case study.

Artifacts are physical objects relevant to the case study. Artifacts can include tools, equipment, products, or other objects that provide insights into the case study phenomenon.

How to conduct Case Study Research

Conducting a case study research involves several steps that need to be followed to ensure the quality and rigor of the study. Here are the steps to conduct case study research:

• Define the research questions: The first step in conducting a case study research is to define the research questions. The research questions should be specific, measurable, and relevant to the case study phenomenon under investigation.
• Select the case: The next step is to select the case or cases to be studied. The case should be relevant to the research questions and should provide rich and diverse data that can be used to answer the research questions.
• Collect data: Data can be collected using various methods, such as interviews, observations, documents, surveys, and artifacts. The data collection method should be selected based on the research questions and the nature of the case study phenomenon.
• Analyze the data: The data collected from the case study should be analyzed using various techniques, such as content analysis, thematic analysis, or grounded theory. The analysis should be guided by the research questions and should aim to provide insights and conclusions relevant to the research questions.
• Draw conclusions: The conclusions drawn from the case study should be based on the data analysis and should be relevant to the research questions. The conclusions should be supported by evidence and should be clearly stated.
• Validate the findings: The findings of the case study should be validated by reviewing the data and the analysis with participants or other experts in the field. This helps to ensure the validity and reliability of the findings.
• Write the report: The final step is to write the report of the case study research. The report should provide a clear description of the case study phenomenon, the research questions, the data collection methods, the data analysis, the findings, and the conclusions. The report should be written in a clear and concise manner and should follow the guidelines for academic writing.

Examples of Case Study

Here are some examples of case study research:

• The Hawthorne Studies : Conducted between 1924 and 1932, the Hawthorne Studies were a series of case studies conducted by Elton Mayo and his colleagues to examine the impact of work environment on employee productivity. The studies were conducted at the Hawthorne Works plant of the Western Electric Company in Chicago and included interviews, observations, and experiments.
• The Stanford Prison Experiment: Conducted in 1971, the Stanford Prison Experiment was a case study conducted by Philip Zimbardo to examine the psychological effects of power and authority. The study involved simulating a prison environment and assigning participants to the role of guards or prisoners. The study was controversial due to the ethical issues it raised.
• The Challenger Disaster: The Challenger Disaster was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion in 1986. The study included interviews, observations, and analysis of data to identify the technical, organizational, and cultural factors that contributed to the disaster.
• The Enron Scandal: The Enron Scandal was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the Enron Corporation’s bankruptcy in 2001. The study included interviews, analysis of financial data, and review of documents to identify the accounting practices, corporate culture, and ethical issues that led to the company’s downfall.
• The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster : The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the nuclear accident that occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan in 2011. The study included interviews, analysis of data, and review of documents to identify the technical, organizational, and cultural factors that contributed to the disaster.

Application of Case Study

Case studies have a wide range of applications across various fields and industries. Here are some examples:

Business and Management

Case studies are widely used in business and management to examine real-life situations and develop problem-solving skills. Case studies can help students and professionals to develop a deep understanding of business concepts, theories, and best practices.

Case studies are used in healthcare to examine patient care, treatment options, and outcomes. Case studies can help healthcare professionals to develop critical thinking skills, diagnose complex medical conditions, and develop effective treatment plans.

Case studies are used in education to examine teaching and learning practices. Case studies can help educators to develop effective teaching strategies, evaluate student progress, and identify areas for improvement.

Social Sciences

Case studies are widely used in social sciences to examine human behavior, social phenomena, and cultural practices. Case studies can help researchers to develop theories, test hypotheses, and gain insights into complex social issues.

Law and Ethics

Case studies are used in law and ethics to examine legal and ethical dilemmas. Case studies can help lawyers, policymakers, and ethical professionals to develop critical thinking skills, analyze complex cases, and make informed decisions.

Purpose of Case Study

The purpose of a case study is to provide a detailed analysis of a specific phenomenon, issue, or problem in its real-life context. A case study is a qualitative research method that involves the in-depth exploration and analysis of a particular case, which can be an individual, group, organization, event, or community.

The primary purpose of a case study is to generate a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the case, including its history, context, and dynamics. Case studies can help researchers to identify and examine the underlying factors, processes, and mechanisms that contribute to the case and its outcomes. This can help to develop a more accurate and detailed understanding of the case, which can inform future research, practice, or policy.

Case studies can also serve other purposes, including:

• Illustrating a theory or concept: Case studies can be used to illustrate and explain theoretical concepts and frameworks, providing concrete examples of how they can be applied in real-life situations.
• Developing hypotheses: Case studies can help to generate hypotheses about the causal relationships between different factors and outcomes, which can be tested through further research.
• Providing insight into complex issues: Case studies can provide insights into complex and multifaceted issues, which may be difficult to understand through other research methods.
• Informing practice or policy: Case studies can be used to inform practice or policy by identifying best practices, lessons learned, or areas for improvement.

Advantages of Case Study Research

There are several advantages of case study research, including:

• In-depth exploration: Case study research allows for a detailed exploration and analysis of a specific phenomenon, issue, or problem in its real-life context. This can provide a comprehensive understanding of the case and its dynamics, which may not be possible through other research methods.
• Rich data: Case study research can generate rich and detailed data, including qualitative data such as interviews, observations, and documents. This can provide a nuanced understanding of the case and its complexity.
• Holistic perspective: Case study research allows for a holistic perspective of the case, taking into account the various factors, processes, and mechanisms that contribute to the case and its outcomes. This can help to develop a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the case.
• Theory development: Case study research can help to develop and refine theories and concepts by providing empirical evidence and concrete examples of how they can be applied in real-life situations.
• Practical application: Case study research can inform practice or policy by identifying best practices, lessons learned, or areas for improvement.
• Contextualization: Case study research takes into account the specific context in which the case is situated, which can help to understand how the case is influenced by the social, cultural, and historical factors of its environment.

Limitations of Case Study Research

There are several limitations of case study research, including:

• Limited generalizability : Case studies are typically focused on a single case or a small number of cases, which limits the generalizability of the findings. The unique characteristics of the case may not be applicable to other contexts or populations, which may limit the external validity of the research.
• Biased sampling: Case studies may rely on purposive or convenience sampling, which can introduce bias into the sample selection process. This may limit the representativeness of the sample and the generalizability of the findings.
• Subjectivity: Case studies rely on the interpretation of the researcher, which can introduce subjectivity into the analysis. The researcher’s own biases, assumptions, and perspectives may influence the findings, which may limit the objectivity of the research.
• Limited control: Case studies are typically conducted in naturalistic settings, which limits the control that the researcher has over the environment and the variables being studied. This may limit the ability to establish causal relationships between variables.
• Time-consuming: Case studies can be time-consuming to conduct, as they typically involve a detailed exploration and analysis of a specific case. This may limit the feasibility of conducting multiple case studies or conducting case studies in a timely manner.
• Resource-intensive: Case studies may require significant resources, including time, funding, and expertise. This may limit the ability of researchers to conduct case studies in resource-constrained settings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Questionnaire – Definition, Types, and Examples

Explanatory Research – Types, Methods, Guide

Observational Research – Methods and Guide

Qualitative Research Methods

Experimental Design – Types, Methods, Guide

Mixed Methods Research – Types & Analysis

• Social Science
• Quantitative Social Research
• Research Design

Robert K. Yin. (2014). Case Study Research Design and Methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 282 pages.

• Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 30(1)

• University of Ottawa

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Antonio Cardoso

• Wallace Chigona
• Lucy A. LePeau
• Ting-Han Chang
• Hadia Alhaddad
• Khaled Galal Ahmed
• Chin-Wen Liao
• Shun-Ning Juan
• Yu-Jung Hsieh

• Seokkyu Kim
• Thabisa Maqoqa

• Juyoung Song

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Research Design Review

A discussion of qualitative & quantitative research design, a multi-method approach in qualitative research.

A portion of the following is taken from Applied Qualitative Research Design: A Total Quality Framework Approach (Roller & Lavrakas, 2015, pp. 288-289).

Qualitative multi-method research—due to the additional data collection and analysis considerations—has the potential disadvantage of consuming valuable resources such as time and available research funds. However, this is not always the case and, under the appropriate conditions, multiple qualitative methods can prove very useful toward gaining a more fully developed complexity and meaning in the researcher’s understanding of a subject matter compared to a single-method research design (cf. Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Flick, 2007).

Ethnography is one such example. Observation is the principal method in an ethnographic study; however, it is often supplemented with other qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews (IDIs), focus group discussions, and/or documentary review in order to provide a more complete “picture” of the issue or phenomenon under investigation. Other applications of multi-method qualitative research are not uncommon. Lambert and Loiselle (2008), for instance, combined focus group discussions and IDIs in a study with cancer patients concerning their “information-seeking behavior.” These researchers found that this multi-method approach enriched the study because one method helped inform the other—for example, group discussions identified relevant questions/issues that were then used in the IDIs—and contributed unique information—for example, the IDIs were effective in obtaining details of patients’ information-seeking processes—as well as contextual clarification—for example, the focus groups were more valuable in highlighting contextual influences on these processes such as the physicians’ preferences or recommendations. Lambert and Loiselle concluded that the multi-method research design “enhanced understanding of the structure and essential characteristics of the phenomenon within the context of cancer” (p. 235).

Research Design Review has published articles on two special types of multiple-method qualitative research— case study and narrative research —each of which is a form of “case-centered” qualitative research, a term coined by Mishler (1996, 1999) and used by others (cf. Riessman, 2008) to denote a research approach that preserves the “unity and coherence” of the research subject throughout data collection and analysis. A six-step approach to case-centered research design is discussed in this article .

Regardless of the particular multi-method design or type of research, a multiple-method approach requires a unique set of qualitative researcher skills. These skills are discussed in this article— “Working with Multiple Methods in Qualitative Research: 7 Unique Researcher Skills.”

Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (2006). Foundations of multimethod research: Synthesizing styles . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Flick, U. (2007). Designing qualitative research . London: Sage Publications.

Lambert, S. D., & Loiselle, C. G. (2008). Combining individual interviews and focus groups to enhance data richness. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 62 (2), 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04559.x

Mishler, E. G. (1996). Missing persons: Recovering developmental stories/histories. In R. Jessor, A. Colby, & R. A. Shweder (Eds.), Ethnography and human development: Context and meaning in social inquiry (pp. 73–100). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Mishler, E. G. (1999). Storylines: Craftartitists’ narratives of identity . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Snape, D., & Spencer, L. (2003). The foundations of qualitative research. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice . London: Sage Publications.

Share this:

• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Pingback: Ethnography & the Observation Method: 15 Articles on Design, Implementation, & Uses | Research Design Review
• Pingback: Ethnography: A Multi-method Approach | Research Design Review

Leave a comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

• Section 2: Home
• Developing the Quantitative Research Design
• Qualitative Descriptive Design
• Design and Development Research (DDR) For Instructional Design
• Qualitative Narrative Inquiry Research
• Action Research Resource
• Case Study Design in an Applied Doctorate

Qualitative Research Designs

Case study design, using case study design in the applied doctoral experience (ade), applicability of case study design to applied problem of practice, case study design references.

• SAGE Research Methods
• Research Examples (SAGE) This link opens in a new window
• Dataset Examples (SAGE) This link opens in a new window
• IRB Resource Center This link opens in a new window

The field of qualitative research there are a number of research designs (also referred to as “traditions” or “genres”), including case study, phenomenology, narrative inquiry, action research, ethnography, grounded theory, as well as a number of critical genres including Feminist theory, indigenous research, critical race theory and cultural studies. The choice of research design is directly tied to and must be aligned with your research problem and purpose. As Bloomberg & Volpe (2019) explain:

Choice of research design is directly tied to research problem and purpose. As the researcher, you actively create the link among problem, purpose, and design through a process of reflecting on problem and purpose, focusing on researchable questions, and considering how to best address these questions. Thinking along these lines affords a research study methodological congruence (p. 38).

Case study is an in-depth exploration from multiple perspectives of a bounded social phenomenon, be this a social system such as a program, event, institution, organization, or community (Stake, 1995, 2005; Yin, 2018). Case study is employed across disciplines, including education, health care, social work, sociology, and organizational studies. The purpose is to generate understanding and deep insights to inform professional practice, policy development, and community or social action (Bloomberg 2018).

Yin (2018) and Stake (1995, 2005), two of the key proponents of case study methodology, use different terms to describe case studies. Yin categorizes case studies as exploratory or descriptive . The former is used to explore those situations in which the intervention being evaluated has no clear single set of outcomes. The latter is used to describe an intervention or phenomenon and the real-life context in which it occurred. Stake identifies case studies as intrinsic or instrumental , and he proposes that a primary distinction in designing case studies is between single and multiple (or collective) case study designs. A single case study may be an instrumental case study (research focuses on an issue or concern in one bounded case) or an intrinsic case study (the focus is on the case itself because the case presents a unique situation). A longitudinal case study design is chosen when the researcher seeks to examine the same single case at two or more different points in time or to capture trends over time. A multiple case study design is used when a researcher seeks to determine the prevalence or frequency of a particular phenomenon. This approach is useful when cases are used for purposes of a cross-case analysis in order to compare, contrast, and synthesize perspectives regarding the same issue. The focus is on the analysis of diverse cases to determine how these confirm the findings within or between cases, or call the findings into question.

Case study affords significant interaction with research participants, providing an in-depth picture of the phenomenon (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). Research is extensive, drawing on multiple methods of data collection, and involves multiple data sources. Triangulation is critical in attempting to obtain an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon under study and adds rigor, breadth, and depth to the study and provides corroborative evidence of the data obtained. Analysis of data can be holistic or embedded—that is, dealing with the whole or parts of the case (Yin, 2018). With multiple cases the typical analytic strategy is to provide detailed description of themes within each case (within-case analysis), followed by thematic analysis across cases (cross-case analysis), providing insights regarding how individual cases are comparable along important dimensions. Research culminates in the production of a detailed description of a setting and its participants, accompanied by an analysis of the data for themes or patterns (Stake, 1995, 2005; Yin, 2018). In addition to thick, rich description, the researcher’s interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations contribute to the reader’s overall understanding of the case study.

Analysis of findings should show that the researcher has attended to all the data, should address the most significant aspects of the case, and should demonstrate familiarity with the prevailing thinking and discourse about the topic. The goal of case study design (as with all qualitative designs) is not generalizability but rather transferability —that is, how (if at all) and in what ways understanding and knowledge can be applied in similar contexts and settings. The qualitative researcher attempts to address the issue of transferability by way of thick, rich description that will provide the basis for a case or cases to have relevance and potential application across a broader context.

Qualitative research methods ask the questions of "what" and "how" a phenomenon is understood in a real-life context (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). In the education field, qualitative research methods uncover educational experiences and practices because qualitative research allows the researcher to reveal new knowledge and understanding. Moreover, qualitative descriptive case studies describe, analyze and interpret events that explain the reasoning behind specific phenomena (Bloomberg, 2018). As such, case study design can be the foundation for a rigorous study within the Applied Doctoral Experience (ADE).

Case study design is an appropriate research design to consider when conceptualizing and conducting a dissertation research study that is based on an applied problem of practice with inherent real-life educational implications. Case study researchers study current, real-life cases that are in progress so that they can gather accurate information that is current. This fits well with the ADE program, as students are typically exploring a problem of practice. Because of the flexibility of the methods used, a descriptive design provides the researcher with the opportunity to choose data collection methods that are best suited to a practice-based research purpose, and can include individual interviews, focus groups, observation, surveys, and critical incident questionnaires. Methods are triangulated to contribute to the study’s trustworthiness. In selecting the set of data collection methods, it is important that the researcher carefully consider the alignment between research questions and the type of data that is needed to address these. Each data source is one piece of the “puzzle,” that contributes to the researcher’s holistic understanding of a phenomenon. The various strands of data are woven together holistically to promote a deeper understanding of the case and its application to an educationally-based problem of practice.

Research studies within the Applied Doctoral Experience (ADE) will be practical in nature and focus on problems and issues that inform educational practice.  Many of the types of studies that fall within the ADE framework are exploratory, and align with case study design. Case study design fits very well with applied problems related to educational practice, as the following set of examples illustrate:

Elementary Bilingual Education Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in Teaching English Language Learners: A Qualitative Case Study

The problem to be addressed in the proposed study is that some elementary bilingual education teachers’ beliefs about their lack of preparedness to teach the English language may negatively impact the language proficiency skills of Hispanic ELLs (Ernst-Slavit & Wenger, 2016; Fuchs et al., 2018; Hoque, 2016). The purpose of the proposed qualitative descriptive case study was to explore the perspectives and experiences of elementary bilingual education teachers regarding their perceived lack of preparedness to teach the English language and how this may impact the language proficiency of Hispanic ELLs.

Exploring Minority Teachers Experiences Pertaining to their Value in Education: A Single Case Study of Teachers in New York City

The problem is that minority K-12 teachers are underrepresented in the United States, with research indicating that school leaders and teachers in schools that are populated mainly by black students, staffed mostly by white teachers who may be unprepared to deal with biases and stereotypes that are ingrained in schools (Egalite, Kisida, & Winters, 2015; Milligan & Howley, 2015). The purpose of this qualitative exploratory single case study was to develop a clearer understanding of minority teachers’ experiences concerning the under-representation of minority K-12 teachers in urban school districts in the United States since there are so few of them.

Exploring the Impact of an Urban Teacher Residency Program on Teachers’ Cultural Intelligence: A Qualitative Case Study

The problem to be addressed by this case study is that teacher candidates often report being unprepared and ill-equipped to effectively educate culturally diverse students (Skepple, 2015; Beutel, 2018). The purpose of this study was to explore and gain an in-depth understanding of the perceived impact of an urban teacher residency program in urban Iowa on teachers’ cultural competence using the cultural intelligence (CQ) framework (Earley & Ang, 2003).

Qualitative Case Study that Explores Self-Efficacy and Mentorship on Women in Academic Administrative Leadership Roles

The problem was that female school-level administrators might be less likely to experience mentorship, thereby potentially decreasing their self-efficacy (Bing & Smith, 2019; Brown, 2020; Grant, 2021). The purpose of this case study was to determine to what extent female school-level administrators in the United States who had a mentor have a sense of self-efficacy and to examine the relationship between mentorship and self-efficacy.

Suburban Teacher and Administrator Perceptions of Culturally Responsive Teaching to Promote Connectedness in Students of Color: A Qualitative Case Study

The problem to be addressed in this study is the racial discrimination experienced by students of color in suburban schools and the resulting negative school experience (Jara & Bloomsbury, 2020; Jones, 2019; Kohli et al., 2017; Wandix-White, 2020). The purpose of this case study is to explore how culturally responsive practices can counteract systemic racism and discrimination in suburban schools thereby meeting the needs of students of color by creating positive learning experiences. 

As you can see, all of these studies were well suited to qualitative case study design. In each of these studies, the applied research problem and research purpose were clearly grounded in educational practice as well as directly aligned with qualitative case study methodology. In the Applied Doctoral Experience (ADE), you will be focused on addressing or resolving an educationally relevant research problem of practice. As such, your case study, with clear boundaries, will be one that centers on a real-life authentic problem in your field of practice that you believe is in need of resolution or improvement, and that the outcome thereof will be educationally valuable.

Bloomberg, L. D. (2018). Case study method. In B. B. Frey (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation (pp. 237–239). SAGE. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/nu.edu?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmethods.sagepub.com%2FReference%2Fthe-sage-encyclopedia-of-educational-research-measurement-and-evaluation%2Fi4294.xml

Bloomberg, L. D. & Volpe, M. (2019). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A road map from beginning to end . (4th Ed.). SAGE.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE.

Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). SAGE.

Yin, R. (2018). Case study research and applications: Designs and methods. SAGE.

• << Previous: Action Research Resource
• Next: SAGE Research Methods >>
• Last Updated: Jul 28, 2023 8:05 AM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/c.php?g=1013605

© Copyright 2024 National University. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Consumer Information

The complexity of chemistry mindset beliefs: a multiple case study approach †

First published on 9th July 2024

Mindset is a construct of interest for challenging learning environments, as science courses often are, in that, it has implications for behavioral responses to academic challenges. Previous work examining mindset in science learning contexts has been primarily quantitative in nature, limiting the theoretical basis for mindset perspectives specific to science domains. A few studies in physics education research have revealed domain-specific complexities applying to the mindset construct that suggest a need to explore undergraduate perspectives on mindset within each science domain. Here we present a multiple case study examining chemistry-specific mindset beliefs of students enrolled in general and organic chemistry lecture courses. A between-case analysis is used to describe six unique perspectives on chemistry mindset beliefs. This analysis revealed that students’ beliefs about their own ability to improve in chemistry intelligence or regarding chemistry-specific cognitive abilities did not consistently match their views on the potential for change for other students in chemistry. The nature of the abilities themselves (whether they were naturally occurring or developed with effort), and the presence of a natural inclination toward chemistry learning were observed to play a role in students’ perspectives. The findings from this analysis are used to propose a more complex model for chemistry-specific mindset beliefs to inform future work.

Introduction

Mindset has been identified as a relevant psychological construct to include in the investigation of persistence behaviors as it involves beliefs about the malleability of intelligence and is linked to persistence and challenge-seeking behaviors ( Molden and Dweck, 2006 ; Doron et al. , 2009 ; Burnette et al. , 2013 ; Lou and Noels, 2016 ; Karlen et al. 2019 ). The term “mindset” originates from research on Implicit Theories of Intelligence, which states that individuals hold either incremental theories (beliefs that intelligence can increase) or entity theories of intelligence (beliefs that intelligence is a fixed trait). Incremental theories are linked to persistence because improvement is believed to be achievable with effort. Entity theories are linked to giving up because challenges are believed to be associated with evidence that one's intelligence is insufficient for the task ( Dweck and Leggett, 1988 ). The terms “growth mindset” and “fixed mindset” are more commonly used in more recent studies but are still based on the original definitions of “incremental” and “entity” theories of intelligence, respectively ( Lüftenegger and Chen, 2017 ).

In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in understanding mindset in STEM contexts ( Gorson and O'Rourke, 2019 ; Little et al. , 2019 ; Limeri et al. , 2020a ; Limeri et al. , 2020b ; Lytle and Shin, 2020 ; Morris et al. , 2019 ; Kalender et al. , 2022 ). This increased research interest has been provoked by findings suggesting that student beliefs about specific domains vary and are more predictive of their outcomes in that domain relative to their general mindset beliefs ( Shively and Ryan, 2013 ; Scott and Ghinea, 2014 ; van Aalderen-Smeets et al. , 2019 ). Gender and racial stereotypes likely influence students’ beliefs about who can succeed in certain STEM fields, and thus their field-specific mindset beliefs ( Aronson et al. , 2002 ; Good et al. , 2003 ; Burkley et al. , 2010 ; Good et al. , 2012 ; Leslie et al. , 2015 ; Lytle and Shin, 2020 ; Ibourk et al. , 2022 ). Several studies have found that domain-specific mindset beliefs: (1) decline over time in STEM courses, and (2) are more predictive of student outcomes relative to general mindset beliefs ( Shively and Ryan, 2013 ; Dai and Cromley, 2014 ; Scott and Ghinea, 2014 ). These findings highlight the profound effects of experiences in STEM courses and the importance of understanding students’ beliefs in association with these domains.

Most mindset theory development occurred through an examination of phenomena in young children to explain behavioral differences ( Dweck and Leggett, 1988 ; Macakova and Wood, 2020 ). There is evidence to suggest that not only are mindset beliefs at the undergraduate level more complex relative to younger students, but also that the domain-specificity becomes more relevant as students age ( Gunderson et al. , 2017 ). Gunderson and coworkers found that students' beliefs about their peers’ ability in math become less growth relative to their beliefs about their peers’ ability in language with increasing age (2017). These belief gaps only increase when it comes to student beliefs about adults working in math-related fields compared to writing-related fields. Recent meta-analyses conducted over large samples of mindset studies have found inconsistent results for mindset interventions and the predictive relation of mindset with achievement for adult students ( Costa and Faria, 2018 ; Sisk et al. , 2018 ). The average effect sizes for the impact of mindset (with or without intervention) on achievement observed across studies decreased with students’ increasing age. An improved understanding of the underlying differences in the impact of adult student mindset and associated behaviors on achievement can help to differentiate these effects from those observed in younger students.

Reports that students can endorse both growth and fixed mindset beliefs simultaneously have existed since early in the mindset research ( Dweck et al. , 1995a, 1995b ). However, the notion that mindset beliefs are context-dependent has gained traction in research lately. The learning environment can activate one view over another ( Little et al. , 2016 ), which may yield various effects on student behaviors. The shift in beliefs as a function of a performance feedback loop for STEM subjects also suggests that context matters ( Dai and Cromley, 2014 ; Scott and Ghinea, 2014 ; Limeri et al. 2020a ). Likewise, findings that instructors’ mindsets about students and the messaging expressed in instruction and teacher-student communication impact student outcomes also point to the environmental influences on student beliefs ( Barger, 2019 ; Canning et al. , 2019 ; Muenks et al. , 2020 ; LaCosse et al. , 2021 ). Little and coworkers called for a shift in methodology away from survey measures that capture a small snapshot of students’ views toward rich qualitative analysis to begin understanding the nature of context influences on student mindsets in physics (2016), which could be equally important in other STEM domains like chemistry.

A deeper understanding of the various aspects of undergraduate chemistry mindset perspectives is needed, along with an examination of contextual influences on the expression of these beliefs in chemistry courses. This multiple-case study examines eight students’ chemistry-intelligence beliefs and experiences in general and organic chemistry to characterize chemistry-specific mindset perspectives as indicated by their expressed beliefs, behaviors, and interpretations of challenges.

Theoretical framework

Domain-general mindset theory.

The key difference between these two operating theories lies in the meaning attributed to failures or challenges ( Molden and Dweck, 2006 ). A student who endorses incremental theory beliefs will interpret failures as challenges that have yet to be overcome because they believe their intelligence can attain the necessary level for success at a task. On the other hand, entity theorists view failures as an indicator of their insufficient ability and do not believe it is possible to affect their intelligence level. The lack of control over intelligence associated with entity beliefs yields helpless responses and negative affect when exposed to failure experiences in attempts to deflect attention from their insufficient ability. Some behaviors associated with entity theories are procrastination ( Howell and Buro, 2009 ), reduction of effort ( Burnette et al. , 2013 ), avoiding help-seeking, evaluation, and difficult tasks ( Hong et al. , 1999 ), and minimizing the importance of the failure by changing pursuits ( Molden and Dweck, 2006 ). In sharp contrast, the presence of a feeling of control over intelligence associated with incremental beliefs encourages efforts to improve, persistence, maintained confidence, enjoyment of challenge, and positive affect associated with minor improvements ( Dweck and Leggett, 1988 ; Molden and Dweck, 2006 ).

Behavior-aligned mindset model

A general mindset model synthesizing the literature on the interconnections between three major mindset themes (mindset beliefs, challenge experiences, and behaviors) was developed by the authors as a framework for analysis, inspired by the SOMA model. Fig. 1 presents this general mindset model as a Venn diagram. At the center of the three interacting factors in student experiences lies ego threat. Ego threat here is conceptualized as the meaning associated with challenge as a function of the beliefs that determine behavioral responses. It should be noted that the work associated with the SOMA model was conducted across domains (domain-general) and through quantitative techniques, thus lacking the specificity to academic and STEM contexts as well as the depth of qualitative investigation.

Theoretical model interpretation

It is important to explain the hypotheses associated with each overlap between factors represented in the general mindset model from Fig. 1 . We can begin by considering the overlap of mindset and challenge. When a challenge is present, differences in interpretations of that challenge arise as a function of mindset. A growth mindset interprets challenge as a need to increase or modify effort strategies, and a fixed mindset interprets challenge as indicative of lacking ability. Similarly, when challenge is absent, differences in interpretation are possible as functions of mindset: a growth mindset interprets the lack of challenge as a demonstration that previous effort has allowed relevant skills to be developed, while a fixed mindset interprets the lack of challenge as indicative of high or natural ability in the relevant area.

The next relationship to consider is the interaction between challenge and behavior. The interpretation of challenge as ability-related leads to helpless responses such as avoiding demonstrating ability or evaluation, sabotaging performance by other means such as procrastination, and giving up or disengaging emotionally to deflect blame on the level of caring. This ability emphasis also leads to focusing attention on negative feedback and performance outcomes. Meanwhile, the interpretation of challenge as effort-related or “needs-development” leads to mastery responses such as seeking help from other sources, altering strategies, exerting more effort, and increasing self-regulation. The effort emphasis also leads to focusing attention on improvement and the learning process.

The final relationship depicted in the model is between mindset and behavior, such that, the behavioral responses indicate the students’ mindset through practical demonstration of their beliefs. When considering students’ effort beliefs, the belief that necessary effort implies low ability reveals a fixed mindset, while the belief that effort is the means to improve at any ability reveals a growth mindset. When considering students’ willingness to change and improve, ignoring feedback as useful for improvement and decreasing effort reveals a fixed mindset, while attention to improving through feedback and increasing effort reveals a growth mindset.

Using this model, we can contrast theoretical criteria for identifying growth and fixed mindset individuals as opposite ends of a continuum. A student with a strong growth mindset believes that any ability can be developed or improved given the appropriate resources and will to do it, does not give up easily in the face of challenge, and focuses on understanding and mastery as a litmus test for success. Alternatively, a student with a strongly fixed mindset believes that abilities tend to be naturally derived and explain the differences between people in achievement and intelligence. This student will also more readily give up in the face of challenge, especially if it is the first serious challenge encountered in life and focuses on achievement and competitive measures of success. This theoretical model will be used in the data analysis of this study as a lens to recognize behavioral indicators of growth or fixed mindset beliefs.

Science domain-specific mindset theory

Study goals and design.

1. How can differences in chemistry mindset be characterized considering students’ beliefs on the nature of chemistry-related abilities, interpretations of challenge, and behavioral responses?

2. What degree of alignment is observed between interview themes and extant general intelligence mindset theory to provide insight into chemistry mindset as a distinct construct?

To address these research questions, interview content will be analyzed inductively for chemistry-specific mindset content using broader themes from the general mindset model ( Fig. 1 ).

Multiple case study design

Participant recruitment and case selection.

During Fall 2021, only selected case study participants were invited to participate in a follow-up interview to gain additional insight into their views. For this second interview, a $20 incentive was offered to ensure high participation and reduce attrition. To select individuals for a multiple case study from the larger interview participant pool, students who had completed both pre- and post-semester surveys in Fall 2020 and Spring 2021 (a total of 4 survey time points) were identified. This criterion was used because it indicates full data existed for each of the participants selected for the case study, leading to an inclusion of eight individuals. Seven were initially interviewed in Fall 2020 and one, Camille, was interviewed in Spring 2021. The case study participant characteristics are described in Fig. 2 . Two students were first-year (freshmen) undergraduates during the first interview semester, three were second-year students (sophomores), two were third-year (juniors), and one was a post-baccalaureate student completing course prerequisites for medical school admission. Three students initially participated during general chemistry I, two during general chemistry II, and three during organic chemistry I. Students who initially participated in organic chemistry II courses were not included since they were no longer enrolled in introductory courses by Spring 2021. This reason also applied to fourth-year seniors; they could not participate once they had graduated. Students in this study had a range of demographic backgrounds and previous educational experiences.

Data sources and collection

In addition to survey response data, case study participants provided in-depth interview content for analysis. The first interviews were conducted during Fall 2020 and were semi-structured. Interviews took less than one hour and incorporated questions as well as several tasks to prompt deeper discussion of mindset topics. Interviews were conducted online using a virtual meeting platform and students were sent a PowerPoint © file containing the tasks before beginning. The full interview protocol and the tasks students completed during these interviews are available in the Appendices A and B. Interviews were screen-captured and audio-recorded for later analysis. After initial questions, students were prompted to share their screens and present the slides associated with a particular task. Students were instructed on how to complete the task and told to use a think-aloud method as they completed each task. Probing questions about the reasons behind task decisions and beliefs indicated in the task were then used to elicit a deeper discussion of each student's views. At the end of the interviews, students were asked to clearly state their mindset beliefs and explain why they hold such beliefs (“Do you think that people can change their intelligence in chemistry? How did you come to believe this?”).

A follow-up interview was requested during Fall 2021 from each of the case study participants. The interview protocol is provided in the ESI. † Questions in this interview focused more on students' experiences in chemistry classes, backgrounds, challenges, responses to challenges, and perceptions of others’ views about chemistry as a subject. Towards the end of the follow-up interview, each case study participant was directed to comment on one of their previously completed tasks. This involved sharing whether they still held the views they did at the time of task completion, explaining why they think they completed it that way, and providing what (if any) changes they would make.

Qualitative analysis

One final coder meeting was conducted to refine codes further and align the names of each theme more closely with terminology from the mindset literature. Additional details of the final codebook are available as ESI, † accompanying the online article (Table S1, ESI † ). Once the codebook and interrater reliability were inductively developed and established using other transcripts from the larger interview pool, all case study interviews were coded according to the three-pass method previously described. This coding scheme was applied to both initial interviews and follow-up interviews deductively.

After coding all interviews, coding frequencies were compared across cases. The transcripts were examined for relevant quotes to represent their expressed views on each aspect (mindset, behavior, and challenge), and summaries for each case were drafted. These summaries were sent to each participant for member-checking, or verification that the summaries accurately represented their views. Most participants replied that it was a correct representation or submitted minor corrections to explain in more detail.

Limitations

Results and discussion, case descriptions and mindset perspectives.

Chemistry mindset perspectives as a continuum

Elle and Yosef expressed views that represent the far ends of the mindset spectrum from one another, Elle being the most fixed in mindset and Yosef holding the strongest growth beliefs. A possible explanation for the strength of Yosef's growth convictions is his high ability in chemistry, which he doesn’t attribute to natural ability, but rather effort and interest. He believes he developed chemistry intelligence through combined effort and interest, so he must think that to be true for anyone. Yosef shares his beliefs about people's ability to improve with the following statement, “I know for a fact, based off of experience that if you put in effort for any small thing – if you really want to put in effort, you can definitely change that. There's like nothing that's impossible to change – unless you're like, not biologically capable of doing it, I think an average person has the ability to change no matter what it is.”

Elle has had the opposite experience of Yosef's. She has low interest and low perceived ability. She thinks the ability portion is natural and thus does not have an interest in chemistry because it's not easy or relatable. She does believe effort makes a difference in her performance, but not as much in her chemistry intelligence, which she doesn’t care as much about regardless. Elle expresses her frustration with learning chemistry in the following:

“Sometimes chemistry will just push me to a point where I just do not want to even try because it just tests me so much and I just don't know what else to do. And challenging problems are…I'm not saying I don't do them at all, but I definitely don't do as many as I should – because I think if I did, I would really be trying to, like, get A's on tests and I really don't do that. I really just try to get a B. And that's just so weird to even say, ‘cause that is really not who I am, to try to get a B, but that's who I am in chemistry…I don't want to be burned when I don't get an A. Because I don't expect it because I know I'm not putting in the effort that is required of an A in chemistry. And just all the different factors – Not naturally being good at it, not really wanting to work at it, wanting to do the bare minimum just to try to get good enough. – It's like an internal issue.”

None of the students’ perspectives completely overlapped, but a few students had sufficient similarities in their views to be categorized within the same mindset theme. First, both Kevin and Johnny seemed convinced that natural abilities are important to how easily you can understand chemistry, but both also expressed that any ability can be developed and equated that to increasing chemistry intelligence. For example, Johnny says,

“I would contrast it as, the natural ability would be like the clay and developed with effort is when you take that clay and mold it into something with edges and, like, corners and, you know, so it becomes something more defined, as opposed to just this big blob of material or matter…I feel like you can have these natural abilities but you still need to do something to shape them and hone them…if you don't, then you could have all the natural ability in the world – It's almost like raw potential. Somebody could have potential, but never meet that potential or meet that promise.”

Second, both Teresa and Natalie expressed confidence that chemistry intelligence is improvable through effort but required performance feedback to create a sense of confidence that growth is possible for themselves as well. To provide evidence for this belief, Natalie shared her experience with improving in visualization skills in organic chemistry: “The ability to rotate models in my head, I've gotten a lot better at that…It feels like a silly small thing, but it's been really rewarding…I used to not be able to do this at all or understand what it is. And now I feel like I kind of know what's happening.”

Another similarity was the strength of emphasis placed on natural abilities by both Camille and Raquel. Nevertheless, they were able to believe themselves capable of growth in chemistry due to their own natural abilities for STEM subjects. Despite this similarity, Camille expressed that increasing chemistry intelligence is possible through effort focused on developing relevant abilities, though she felt that not all abilities were changeable. Her belief about stable abilities is apparent in the following quote: “I think it's just differences that we all have as humans. There are people that are always going to be able to have a better memory than most. Like, I have a terrible memory.

No matter what I do I can't necessarily change it. The only thing I can do is improve on how I try to relate the information that I'm trying to remember to things that I've – Things that I know, things that just come naturally to me.” Raquel expressed a higher number of abilities as difficult to change, showing a belief that natural abilities are mostly stable.

Based on the similarities and differences discussed above, different categories of mindset perspectives can be defined. These mindset perspectives are presented in Fig. 3 along a hypothetical continuum. Elle carries the traditional implications of fixed beliefs, in that, if a person doesn’t have natural ability for chemistry, then there is not much that can be done other than to protect one's ego through avoidant behaviors. Raquel is a bit more open to the idea of improving chemistry intelligence but much more for those who have the natural ability to begin with. Camille has a slightly more flexible view on overall chemistry intelligence but emphasized specific abilities as unchangeable and the need to leverage the natural abilities you do have to improve. Kevin and Johnny both believe that development of any ability is possible, yet state that natural ability plays a role in how easily one can learn. They were placed at the same point on the continuum in Fig. 3 because their views are similar, yet Kevin has more confidence because he views himself as having natural ability for chemistry and Johnny does not. Johnny instead has a natural interest (or curiosity) and thus is willing to develop his weak areas. Teresa and Natalie both believe that anything can be developed yet were hesitant to believe this about their own chemistry intelligence without evidence supporting that they could improve. Teresa's shift from lack of confidence in general chemistry to complete enjoyment of the success she found in organic chemistry is more substantial than the changes Natalie experienced. This could suggest that Natalie's mindset beliefs are more deeply ingrained and drive her effort to improve, while Teresa has exerted effort out of a desire to succeed and her mindset beliefs followed her improvement. Finally, Yosef expressed very optimistic views regarding anyone developing abilities if they have interest in that domain. He did acknowledge that some people have a “God-given talent” for certain subjects, but also said that everyone must work hard to be good at chemistry. His main comparison between students who do well in chemistry and those who do not was based on the amount of effort they apply as driven by their personal interests. He also stated that educators play a significant role in how personally interesting a course is through their own enthusiasm for the content.

Chemistry mindset perspectives in two-dimensions

Results from the survey measures indicate that the case study participants tended to have more fixed mindsets about others’ chemistry intelligence compared to their own. Aligning with the interview findings, Yosef was shown to have the highest growth mindset about his own chemistry intelligence as well as that of other students. Raquel and Elle both scored the lowest on their chemistry mindset beliefs as well as their beliefs about others, with Raquel reporting the most fixed chemistry mindset about others. Johnny and Teresa both reported a more growth mindset about others compared to themselves, aligning with the expressions of self-doubt and lack of natural ability in the area of chemistry described in their interviews. All participants reported a chemistry mindset on the growth end of the scale, but the degree of growth chemistry mindset about self and others aligned well with the interview findings.

The other important result from the survey measures included in the case study was the relationship between chemistry mindset about self and the participants’ self-report of mindset-related behaviors. Behaviors were consistently slightly less growth mindset compared to the measured chemistry mindset belief. This meant that the students with the highest reported mindset-related behaviors were those who also held the most growth beliefs about their own chemistry intelligence. Combined with the observation that mindset beliefs about self and others do not always align, this finding suggests that chemistry mindset beliefs about the self most strongly predict a student's mindset-related behaviors ( i.e. avoidance, persistence, reception of critique, etc. ). It should be noted that only qualitative observations can be made about these survey results with a sample size of 8 participants and generalizations cannot be made based on this evidence alone.

To address the second research question, rather than considering three categories of mindset (growth, middle, and fixed) as the traditional mindset literature suggests ( Dweck et al. , 1995a ; Hong et al. , 1999 ), we can consider the four quadrants of the two-dimensional conception of mindset ( Kalender et al. , 2022 ; Malespina et al. , 2022 ). The upper right and bottom left quadrant represent the growth and fixed labels as previously defined; however, with a richer measurement distinction as a combination of two dimensions. In contrast, the bottom right and upper left quadrants may shed additional light on the messy middle described in the mindset literature ( Hong et al. , 1999 ).

Alignment of chemistry mindset with general mindset

It must be acknowledged that the academic environment in which all students in this study were enrolled places a general emphasis on performance above mastery and the primary tool provided for diagnosing one's mastery is performance scores. If academic environments aim to promote mastery and growth beliefs, the performance focus may need to be reconsidered due to its impact on students’ interpretations of their own success.

Based on the criteria described for a growth mindset, Yosef, Kevin, Johnny, and Natalie would all be considered to have a growth mindset. In the case analyses described here, Yosef, Teresa, and Natalie were all considered to have chemistry mindsets aligning with growth beliefs and Johnny and Kevin were considered to lie on the growth end of the spectrum. Some caveats to this classification process were misalignment of beliefs about oneself relative to others and some emphasis on natural abilities or an innate interest in chemistry. Thus, a growth chemistry mindset appears to be more complex in nature than a theoretical general growth mindset.

Raquel meets two of these fixed mindset criteria. She explains the differences between people's achievement in chemistry by way of their natural abilities. She also admits to using some degree of competitive behavior in comparing her grades to others to boost her self-esteem. However, she does not give up in the face of challenges and rather becomes more motivated when challenges arise because she believes herself capable of overcoming them due to her high natural ability. Camille meets the first criterion (natural abilities) to some degree, but is a bit more flexible in that view, and does not meet any of the others. Teresa met the third criterion to some degree in her first interview (performance and competition) but attempts to minimize these comparisons to maintain her confidence and does not meet the others. Classifying a chemistry fixed mindset, as indicated by these cases, is complex. Some of the criteria from a theoretical fixed general mindset aligned with students whose views approached a growth chemistry mindset. This is due to misalignment of beliefs about the self and others in chemistry because of perceived self-competence.

Furthermore, evidence for multiple dimensions of chemistry mindset beliefs was uncovered in this case study as a function of who is being considered (self versus others). Similar dimensions have been uncovered for undergraduate students’ physics mindset beliefs ( Kalender et al. , 2022 ; Malespina et al. , 2022 ). Moreover, the degree of ingrained beliefs about oneself was found to correspond to interpretations of challenge and behavioral responses to challenge. This suggests that although there is substantial alignment of chemistry mindset, behaviors, and challenges observed in these case participants with extant literature findings, the object of mindset items (me or someone else) are critical to predictive measures of an individual's behaviors (RQ2).

Implications for research and teaching

The multiple aspects involved in a rich description of a students’ chemistry mindset could be considered for better triangulation of their true beliefs and the depth to which they hold such beliefs. The more accurate our description of a student's mindset, the more appropriate predictions could be made regarding their success in chemistry courses. One method to resolve this concern for large-scale mindset classification would be to create a multidimensional mindset instrument, specific to chemistry, that addresses each construct as a subfactor: (1) chemistry mindset about self, (2) chemistry mindset about everyone, (3) interpretation of challenge in chemistry, and (4) behavioral response to challenge in chemistry. These additional factors can allow for the creation of many mindset categories that could each be evaluated for their relative contribution to the predictive relationship of mindset with student success outcomes.

In chemistry classrooms, a variety of student affective profiles are present. Feedback carries different meaning to each student as a function of their mindset beliefs and self-perceptions of chemistry ability. Chemistry instructors should be aware of this when providing feedback to students and emphasize the ways in which it is beneficial to their improvement rather than evaluative of their ability. Also, students may place different degrees of emphasis on the effects of effort toward impacting their intelligence or just their “ability.” Noticeable improvements in mastery or skills can be emphasized by instructors over simple grade improvements or “native abilities.” Because students were more likely to exhibit mastery behaviors when they had high ability self-perceptions, instructors can impact students’ mindset beliefs about the self by placing emphasis on improvements over the scores themselves, which is likely to increase ability perceptions and thus foster growth beliefs about the self.

Another avenue for impacting students was suggested by one of the case participants, Yosef. He perceived his instructors as impacting his interest through their enthusiasm and passion for the subject of chemistry. It is important for instructors to remember that they serve as role models for students. Instructors can share how they improved their own intelligence in chemistry through effort and that they believe this to be possible for any student who is willing to engage in it. This can be specifically targeted as individual skills, such as visualization, mathematical thinking, and disciplinary language usage. Instructors can also share topics of personal interest related to course content and provide opportunities for students to see how the concepts being covered are relevant to them.

Data availability

Conflicts of interest, appendix a. initial in-depth semi-structured interview protocol with tasks developed based on general mindset literature.

Description of phases and questions students will be asked to respond to using think aloud:

Phase 1: Beginning questions to practice talking:

• How is the current semester of chemistry going?

• What course are you in, how are your grades, do you feel challenged currently in chemistry?

• What do you notice about someone in chemistry class that makes you think they are smart/intelligent?

• Do you recall family members praising you more for your ability or for your effort in school?

• Do you think your chemistry intelligence is the main factor determining your chemistry performance?

• Why or why not? (How would you define it?)

• Can you tell me about a time when you faced a challenge in chemistry? What happened, how did you respond, and what was the end result?

Phase 2: Behaviors in challenging chemistry scenarios selection activity (Appendix A Fig. 5 and 6 )

• Which of these items can you see yourself doing this semester when you experience challenges in chemistry? Circle the ones you think are relevant to you and cross out those that you don’t think you would do.

• For some of the circled responses: Can you give an example of a time you did that in a class?

• For some of the crossed out responses: Why did you cross that out (social desirability?)? Why don’t you think you would do that?

Phase 3a: Beliefs about cognitive abilities important to chemistry intelligence selection activity (Appendix A Fig. 7 )

• Which of these items are the most important aspects of chemistry intelligence? Circle the ones you agree with and cross out those you don’t agree with.

• Are there any other aspects you would like to add to this list?

• Which of these are aspects you feel like you are good at vs not good at? Why?

Phase 3b: Beliefs about chemistry intelligence cognitive abilities origins sorting activity (Appendix A Fig. 8 )

• Out of the items you circled, how do you think you get those abilities? Are they developed or natural abilities?

• What do you think “natural ability” means?

• Why do you think these are developed? Can you give an example?

• Why do you think these are natural abilities? Can you give an example?

Phase 3c: Beliefs about chemistry intelligence cognitive abilities malleability within origin sorting activity (Appendix A Fig. 9 )

• Can you sort each of these into those that you can change versus those that you cannot change?

• How would you define “change” in this case?

• What evidence of change would you look at to verify that it had happened?

• Why do you think these can change?

• Why do you think these cannot change?

Phase 4: Discussion of survey response reasons and discrepancies with currently stated beliefs

• Here are the responses you selected from the survey earlier this semester.

• Why did you choose this answer before? What were you thinking when you read the question? (social desirability?)

• Today, you said this behavior/answer, but/and on the survey you said this. Why do you think they were different/the same?

Phase 5: Graphing of intelligence over lifetime activity (Appendix A Fig. 10 )

• How do you define intelligence as a whole?

• What do you think a graph of intelligence vs. time looks from birth, through childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and elderly stages until death for the average person?

• How should the graph look for the average chemist?

• Can you explain why you drew each graph the way you did?

• Why is the graph for the average person the same/different from the average chemist?

• Can you compare the max intelligence you drew and the shape of each graph?

Phase 6: Final questions

• Do you think that people can change their intelligence in chemistry? How did you come to believe this?

• Throughout your chemistry courses, has your confidence in your chemistry ability changed? How and why?

• Have you ever dropped, withdrawn, or failed a chemistry course? If so, what factors influenced that decision/event?

• Do you often doubt your ability to succeed in chemistry? If so, what causes you to think that way?

• Have you ever said (or believed) that you aren’t good at chemistry? Why?

Appendix B. Follow-up semi-structured interview protocol.

Phase 1: Beginning questions to practice talking and reflecting on past experiences and what brought them to this point.

• What class are you currently in and what is your major/reason for taking chemistry?

• What led you to select your major? What are your career goals?

• Can you tell me a bit about your background? What were some influences on your academic/career goals?

• What were some influences on what you value as demonstrating intelligence?

• Can you discuss your experiences with chemistry before college? What is your history with chemistry?

Phase 2: How does the student view their identity with regards to science and/or chemistry?

• How well do you feel that you fit in as a science major? What about in a chemistry class? Why do you see yourself that way?

• What kind of person do you think becomes a chemist?

Phase 3: What are external factors affecting the student's beliefs about chemistry?

• How do your family and friends talk about chemistry and/or your major? Do they seem to think it requires natural ability or very smart people?

• How do you think your chemistry instructors view your intelligence in chemistry? Do they seem to think it can change?

• How does society/our culture/everyday person view chemistry in terms of difficulty/ability?

• Do you agree with these different perspectives about chemistry? Why or why not?

Phase 4: What are the student's internal beliefs about chemistry and challenge experiences?

• How challenging do you believe chemistry is? Is it more or less challenging to you compared to your peers? Why do you think this is? Were there differences between organic and general chemistry in terms of difficulty?

• What is the most challenging aspect of chemistry to you?

• What are some specific challenges you have faced in chemistry classes? How big of a challenge was it? When did it happen and how did you feel? What did you do?

• What does encountering a challenge in chemistry mean to you (low ability or more effort)? How does that make you feel? What do you do when there's a challenge?

Phase 5: What are some behaviors the student acknowledges being important to their success?

• What is something you achieved in chemistry that you are very proud of?

• What is something you did in chemistry that you are not so proud of?

Phase 6: Previous interview activity results

• Show either the categorization of chemistry abilities, the natural ability vs developed abilities, or the plot for intelligence and ask further questions to clarify perspective and gauge changes in beliefs.

Phase 7: Final questions (What is the student's mindset toward chemistry and has it changed?)

• Is your ability to do chemistry something that you could improve in? How would that happen? What are some aspects that could be improved?

• Has the way you feel about your ability to do chemistry changed over time? How and why?

• Do your feelings about your ability to do chemistry change in certain scenarios? Can you give examples?

• Is chemistry something that you could see a career in? Why or why not?

Acknowledgements

• Aronson J., Fried C. B. and Good C., (2002), Reducing the Effects of Stereotype Threat on African American College Students by Shaping Theories of Intelligence, J. Exp. Soc. Psych. , 38 (2), 113–125  DOI: 10.1006/jesp.2001.1491 .
• Bandura A., (1986), Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory , Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
• Bandura M. and Dweck C., (1985), The relationship of conceptions of intelligence and achievement goals to achievement – Related cognition, affect and behavior, Unpublished manuscript .
• Barger M. M., (2019), Connections Between Instructor Messages and Undergraduate Students' Changing Personal Theories About Education, J. Exp. Educ. , 87 (2), 314–331  DOI: 10.1080/00220973.2018.1469111 .
• Burkley M., Parker J., Paul Stermer S. and Burkley E., (2010), Trait beliefs that make women vulnerable to math disengagement, Personality Indiv. Diff. , 48 (2), 234–238  DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.09.002 .
• Burnette J. L., O'Boyle E. H., VanEpps E. M., Pollack J. M. and Finkel E. J., (2013), Mind-sets matter: a meta -analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation, Psych. Bull. , 139 (3), 655–701  DOI: 10.1037/a0029531 .
• Canning E. A., Muenks K., Green D. J. and Murphy M. C., (2019), STEM faculty who believe ability is fixed have larger racial achievement gaps and inspire less student motivation in their classes, Sci. Adv. , 5 (2), eaau4734  DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aau4734 .
• Carver C. S. and Scheier M. F., (2001), On the Self-Regulation of Behavior , Cambridge University Press.
• Costa A. and Faria L., (2018), Implicit Theories of Intelligence and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Review, Front. Psych. , 9 , 829  DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00829 .
• Dai T. and Cromley J. G., (2014), Changes in implicit theories of ability in biology and dropout from STEM majors: a latent growth curve approach, Contemp. Educ. Psych. , 39 (3), 233–247  DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.06.003 .
• De Castella K. and Byrne D., (2015), My intelligence may be more malleable than yours: the revised implicit theories of intelligence (self-theory) scale is a better predictor of achievement, motivation, and student disengagement, Eur. J. Psych. Educ. , 30 (3), 245–267  DOI: 10.1007/s10212-015-0244-y .
• Diener C. I. and Dweck C. S., (1978), An analysis of learned helplessness: continuous changes in performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure, J. Personality Soc. Psych. , 36 (5), 451.
• Doron J., Stephan Y., Boiché J. and Scanff C. L., (2009), Coping with examinations: exploring relationships between students' coping strategies, implicit theories of ability, and perceived control, British J. Educ. Psych. , 79 (3), 515–528.
• Dweck C. S., Chiu C.-Y. and Hong Y.-Y., (1995a) Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: a word from two perspectives, Psych. Inquiry. , 6 (4), 267–285  DOI: 10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1 .
• Dweck C. S., Chiu C.-Y. and Hong Y.-Y., (1995b), Implicit theories: elaboration and extension of the model, Psych. Inquiry , 6 (4), 322–333.
• Dweck C. S. and Leggett E. L., (1988), A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality, Psych. Rev. , 95 (2), 256.
• Good C., Aronson J. and Inzlicht M., (2003), Improving adolescents' standardized test performance: an intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat, J. App. Dev. Psych. , 24 (6), 645–662  DOI: 10.1016/j.appdev.2003.09.002 .
• Good C., Rattan A. and Dweck C. S., (2012), Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women's representation in mathematics, J. Personality Soc. Psych. , 102 (4), 700–717  DOI: 10.1037/a0026659 .
• Gorson J. and O'Rourke E., (2019), How Do Students Talk About Intelligence? An Investigation of Motivation, Self-efficacy, and Mindsets in Computer Science, Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research , Toronto ON, Canada  DOI: 10.1145/3291279.3339413 .
• Guest G., Namey E. and Chen M., (2020), A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research, PLoS One , 15 (5), e0232076.
• Gunderson E. A., Hamdan N., Sorhagen N. S. and D'Esterre A. P., (2017), Who needs innate ability to succeed in math and literacy? Academic-domain-specific theories of intelligence about peers versus adults, Dev. Psych. , 53 (6), 1188.
• Harris R. B., Mack M. R., Bryant J., Theobald E. J. and Freeman S., (2020), Reducing achievement gaps in undergraduate general chemistry could lift underrepresented students into a “hyperpersistent zone”, Sci. Adv. , 6 (24), eaaz5687  DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aaz5687 .
• Hong Y.-Y., Chiu C.-Y., Dweck C. S., Lin D. M.-S. and Wan W., (1999), Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: a meaning system approach, J. Personality Soc. Psych. , 77 (3), 588.
• Horowitz G., Rabin L. A. and Brodale D. L., (2013), Improving Student Performance in Organic Chemistry: Help Seeking Behaviors and Prior Chemistry Aptitude. J. Scholarship Teach. Learn. , 13 (3), 120–133.
• Howell A. J. and Buro K., (2009), Implicit beliefs, achievement goals, and procrastination: a mediational analysis, Learn. Indiv. Diff. , 19 (1), 151–154.
• Ibourk A., Hughes R. and Mathis C., (2022), “It is what it is”: using Storied-Identity and intersectionality lenses to understand the trajectory of a young Black woman's science and math identities, J. Res. Sci. Teach. , 59 (7), 1099–1133.
• Kalender Z. Y., Marshman E., Schunn C. D., Nokes-Malach T. J. and Singh C., (2022), Framework for unpacking students’ mindsets in physics by gender, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. , 18 (1), 010116.
• Karlen Y., Suter F., Hirt C. and Maag Merki K., (2019), The role of implicit theories in students' grit, achievement goals, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and achievement in the context of a long-term challenging task, Learn. Indiv. Diff. , 74 , 101757  DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101757 .
• Koch A. K., (2017), It's About the Gateway Courses: Defining and Contextualizing the Issue, New Dir. Higher Educ. , 2017 (180), 11–17  DOI: 10.1002/he.20257 .
• LaCosse J., Murphy M. C., Garcia J. A. and Zirkel S., (2021), The role of STEM professors’ mindset beliefs on students’ anticipated psychological experiences and course interest, J. Educ. Psych. , 113 (5), 949  DOI: 10.1037/edu0000620.supp (Supplemental).
• Leslie S.-J., Cimpian A., Meyer M. and Freeland E., (2015), Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines, Science , 347 (6219), 262  DOI: 10.1126/science.1261375 .
• Limeri L. B., Carter N. T., Choe J., Harper H. G., Martin H. R., Benton A. and Dolan E. L., (2020a), Growing a growth mindset: characterizing how and why undergraduate students’ mindsets change, Int. J. STEM Educ. , 7 (1), 35  DOI: 10.1186/s40594-020-00227-2 .
• Limeri L. B., Choe J., Harper H. G., Martin H. R., Benton A. and Dolan E. L., (2020b), Knowledge or Abilities? How Undergraduates Define Intelligence, CBE—Life Sci. Educ. , 19 (1), ar5.
• Little A. J., Humphrey B., Green A., Nair A. and Sawtelle V., (2019), Exploring mindset's applicability to students' experiences with challenge in transformed college physics courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. , 15 (1), 010127  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010127 .
• Little A., Sawtelle V. and Humphrey B., (2016), Mindset in context: Developing new methodologies to study mindset in interview data, Paper presented at the Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings.
• Lou N. M. and Noels K. A., (2016), Changing language mindsets: implications for goal orientations and responses to failure in and outside the second language classroom. Contemp. Educ. Psych. , 46 , 22–33  DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.03.004 .
• Lüftenegger M. and Chen J. A., (2017) Conceptual issues and assessment of implicit theories, Zeitschrift für Psychologie , 225 (2), 99–106  DOI: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000286 .
• Lytle A. and Shin J. E., (2020), Incremental Beliefs, STEM Efficacy and STEM Interest Among First-Year Undergraduate Students. J. Sci. Educ. Tech. , 1–10.
• Macakova V. and Wood C., (2020), The relationship between academic achievement, self-efficacy, implicit theories and basic psychological needs satisfaction among university students, Stud. High. Educ. , 1–11  DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1739017 .
• Malespina A., Schunn C. D. and Singh C., (2022), Whose ability and growth matter? Gender, mindset and performance in physics, Int. J. STEM Educ. , 9 (1), 1–16.
• McKinney L., Novak H., Hagedorn L. S. and Luna-Torres M., (2019), Giving up on a course: an analysis of course dropping behaviors among community college students, Res. High. Educ. , 60 (2), 184–202.
• Molden D. C. and Dweck C. S., (2006), Finding “meaning” in psychology: a lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development, Am. Psych. , 61 (3), 192.
• Morris C., Ramaswami A., Kramer A. and Dringenberg E., (2019), A Preliminary Study of How Undergraduate Engineering Students Describe Intelligence and Smartness. Paper presented at the 2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).
• Muenks K., Canning E. A., LaCosse J., Green D. J., Zirkel S., Garcia J. A. and Murphy M. C., (2020), Does my professor think my ability can change? Students’ perceptions of their STEM professors’ mindset beliefs predict their psychological vulnerability, engagement, and performance in class, J. Exp. Psych.: General , 149 (11), 2119–2144  DOI: 10.1037/xge0000763.supp (Supplemental).
• Popejoy K. and Asala K. S., (2013), A Team Approach to Successful Learning: Peer Learning Coaches in Chemistry, J. College Sci. Teaching , 42 (3), 18.
• Santos D. L., Barbera J. and Mooring S. R., (2022), Development of the Chemistry Mindset Instrument (CheMI) for use with introductory undergraduate chemistry students, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. , 23 (3), 742–757.
• Scott M. J. and Ghinea G., (2014), On the Domain-Specificity of Mindsets: The Relationship Between Aptitude Beliefs and Programming Practice, IEEE Trans. Educ. , 57 (3), 169–174  DOI: 10.1109/TE.2013.2288700 .
• Shively R. L. and Ryan C. S., (2013), Longitudinal changes in college math students’ implicit theories of intelligence, Soc. Psych. Educ. , 16 (2), 241–256.
• Sisk V. F., Burgoyne A. P., Sun J., Butler J. L. and Macnamara B. N., (2018), To What Extent and Under Which Circumstances Are Growth Mind-Sets Important to Academic Achievement? Two Meta-Analyses, Psych. Sci. , 29 (4), 549–571  DOI: 10.1177/0956797617739704 .
• Stake R. E., (1995), The art of case study research , sage.
• Tai R. H., Sadler P. M. and Loehr J. F., (2005), Factors influencing success in introductory college chemistry, J. Res. Sci. Teach. , 42 (9), 987–1012  DOI: 10.1002/tea.20082 .
• van Aalderen-Smeets S. I., Walma van der Molen J. H. and Xenidou-Dervou I., (2019), Implicit STEM ability beliefs predict secondary school students' STEM self-efficacy beliefs and their intention to opt for a STEM field career, J. Res. Sci. Teach. , 56 (4), 465–485.
• Yin R. K., (2003), Design and methods, Case Study Res. , 3 (9.2).