Editing Case study (section)

== Definition ==
There are multiple definitions of case studies, which may emphasize the number of [[observation]]s (a small N), the method ([[Qualitative research|qualitative]]), the thickness of the research (a comprehensive examination of a phenomenon and its context), and the naturalism (a "real-life context" is being examined) involved in the research.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Gerring|first=John|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xECY0nnkTvMC|title=Case Study Research: Principles and Practices|date=2007|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-85928-8|pages=17|language=en}}</ref> There is general agreement among scholars that a case study does not necessarily have to entail one observation (N=1), but can include many observations within a single case or across numerous cases.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":12" /><ref name=":13" /><ref name=":14" /> For example, a case study of the [[French Revolution]] would at the bare minimum be an observation of two observations: France before and after a revolution.<ref name=":16">{{Cite book|last=Gerring|first=John|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xECY0nnkTvMC|title=Case Study Research: Principles and Practices|date=2007|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-85928-8|pages=29–32|language=en}}</ref> John Gerring writes that the N=1 research design is so rare in practice that it amounts to a "myth".<ref name=":16" />

The term ''cross-case'' research is frequently used for studies of multiple cases, whereas ''within-case'' research is frequently used for a single case study.<ref name=":13" /><ref name=":15" />

John Gerring defines the case study approach as an "intensive study of a single unit or a small number of units (the cases), for the purpose of understanding a larger class of similar units (a population of cases)".<ref>{{Cite book|last=Gerring|first=John|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xECY0nnkTvMC|title=Case Study Research: Principles and Practices|date=2007|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-85928-8|pages=37|language=en}}</ref> According to Gerring, case studies lend themselves to an [[Nomothetic and idiographic|idiographic]] style of analysis, whereas [[Quantitative research|quantitative]] work lends itself to a [[Nomothetic and idiographic|nomothetic]] style of analysis.<ref name=":20">{{Cite journal|last=Gerring|first=John|date=2017|title=Qualitative Methods|journal=Annual Review of Political Science|language=en|volume=20|issue=1|pages=15–36|doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-092415-024158|issn=1094-2939|doi-access=free}}</ref> He adds that "the defining feature of qualitative work is its use of noncomparable observations—observations that pertain to different aspects of a causal or descriptive question", whereas quantitative observations are comparable.<ref name=":20" />

According to John Gerring, the key characteristic that distinguishes case studies from all other methods is the "reliance on evidence drawn from a single case and its attempts, at the same time, to illuminate features of a broader set of cases".<ref name=":16" /> Scholars use case studies to shed light on a "class" of phenomena.