IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v45y2016i3p458-492.html

A Careful Look at Modern Case Selection Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Michael C. Herron
  • Kevin M. Quinn

Abstract

Case studies appear prominently in political science, sociology, and other social science fields. A scholar employing a case study research design in an effort to estimate causal effects must confront the question, how should cases be selected for analysis? This question is important because the results derived from a case study research program ultimately and unavoidably rely on the criteria used to select the cases. While the matter of case selection is at the forefront of research on case study design, an analytical framework that can address it in a comprehensive way has yet to be produced. We develop such a framework and use it to evaluate nine common case selection methods. Our simulation-based results show that the methods of simple random sampling, influential case selection, and diverse case selection generally outperform other common methods. And, when a research design mandates that only a very small number of cases, say one or two, be selected in the course of a research program, the very simple method of sampling from the largest cell of a 2 × 2 table is competitive with other, more complicated, case selection methods. We show as well that a number of common case selection strategies work well only in idiosyncratic situations, and we argue that these methods should be abandoned in favor of the more powerful and robust case selection methods that our analytical framework identifies.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael C. Herron & Kevin M. Quinn, 2016. "A Careful Look at Modern Case Selection Methods," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 45(3), pages 458-492, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:45:y:2016:i:3:p:458-492
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124114547053
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124114547053
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124114547053?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adam N. Glynn & Jon Wakefield & Mark S. Handcock & Thomas S. Richardson, 2008. "Alleviating linear ecological bias and optimal design with subsample data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(1), pages 179-202, January.
    2. Gerring, John, 2004. "What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(2), pages 341-354, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jessica Weber, 2023. "Coordination Challenges in Wind Energy Development: Lessons from Cross-Case Positive Planning Approaches to Avoid Multi-Level Governance ‘Free-Riding’," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-25, October.
    2. Hugo Consciência Silvestre, 2017. "Themed Issue: Cash Transfers and Microfinance," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 35(5), pages 703-720, September.
    3. Slawomir Czech & Magdalena Tusinska, 2016. "Economic growth, public debt and social spending. Should welfare state take the blame?," Ekonomia i Prawo, Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika, vol. 15(1), pages 33-45, March.
    4. Irene L. Hudson & Linda Moore & Eric J. Beh & David G. Steel, 2010. "Ecological inference techniques: an empirical evaluation using data describing gender and voter turnout at New Zealand elections, 1893–1919," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 173(1), pages 185-213, January.
    5. Michael Dougherty & Tricia Olsen, 2014. "Taking Terrain Literally: Grounding Local Adaptation to Corporate Social Responsibility in the Extractive Industries," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 119(3), pages 423-434, February.
    6. Peter W. de Langen & Henrik Sornn-Friese & James Hallworth, 2020. "The Role of Port Development Companies in Transitioning the Port Business Ecosystem; The Case of Port of Amsterdam’s Circular Activities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-16, May.
    7. Andersson Fredrik O. & Ford Michael, 2017. "Entry Barriers and Nonprofit Founding Rates: An Examination of the Milwaukee Voucher School Population," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 71-90, January.
    8. Gustav Lidén, 2013. "What about theory? The consequences on a widened perspective of social theory," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 213-225, January.
    9. Poteete, Amy R. & Ostrom, Elinor, 2008. "Fifteen Years of Empirical Research on Collective Action in Natural Resource Management: Struggling to Build Large-N Databases Based on Qualitative Research," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 176-195, January.
    10. Richard Ormerod, 2017. "Writing practitioner case studies to help behavioural OR researchers ground their theories: application of the mangle perspective," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 68(5), pages 507-520, May.
    11. Jolta Kacani & Lucas Wunnik, 2017. "Using Upgrading Strategy and Analytics to Provide Agility to Clothing Manufacturing Subsidiaries: With a Case Study," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 18(1), pages 21-31, March.
    12. Wertheim-Heck, Sigrid C.O. & Vellema, Sietze & Spaargaren, Gert, 2015. "Food safety and urban food markets in Vietnam: The need for flexible and customized retail modernization policies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 95-106.
    13. Ines Wagner, 2015. "EU posted work and transnational action in the German meat industry," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 21(2), pages 201-213, May.
    14. Andersson, Krister & Meinzen-Dick, Ruth S. & Nehring, Ryan & Zhang, Wei, 2024. "Why do multistakeholder processes emerge and flourish? Identifying and operationalizing the leading hypotheses," IFPRI discussion papers 2312, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    15. Anokye, Kwame & Darko, Abigail Okyere & Diderutua, Edmund Kude & Boateng, Jemima & Apea, Helina Boansi & Agyeiwaa, Afia & Halid, Abdul-Jalil & Naaso, Ivy Betur & Awiah, Basil Wepadam, 2025. "Bridging the divide: Cultivating collaborative leadership in a rural Ghanaian school," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    16. Shuchih Ernest Chang & Hueimin Louis Luo & YiChian Chen, 2019. "Blockchain-Enabled Trade Finance Innovation: A Potential Paradigm Shift on Using Letter of Credit," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.
    17. Daniel Béland & Michael Howlett & Philip Rocco & Alex Waddan, 2020. "Designing policy resilience: lessons from the Affordable Care Act," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 269-289, June.
    18. Wils, Tommy H.G. & van den Akker, Jan J.H. & Korff, Mandy & Bakema, Guido & Hegger, Dries L.T. & Hessel, Rudi & van den Ende, Mandy A. & van Gils, Martijn M.W. & Verstand, Daan, 2025. "Measures to reduce land subsidence and greenhouse gas emissions in peatlands: A Dutch case study," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    19. Kotapati Srinivasa Reddy, 2015. "Beating the Odds! Build theory from emerging markets phenomenon and the emergence of case study research—A “Test-Tube” typology," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 1037225-103, December.
    20. Demircioglu, Mehmet Akif & Vivona, Roberto, 2021. "Depoliticizing the European immigration debate: How to employ public sector innovation to integrate migrants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:45:y:2016:i:3:p:458-492. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.