Cited by 14,266Qualitative Comparative Analysis ResearchQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsMethodology and Impact of Social Science Research

Five misunderstandings about case-study research

Open access
Flyvbjerg, Bent·2006·Qualitative Inquiry

Abstract

This article examines five common misunderstandings about case-study research: (a) theoretical knowledge is more valuable than practical knowledge; (b) one cannot generalize from a single case, therefore, the single-case study cannot contribute to scientific development; (c) the case study is most useful for generating hypotheses, whereas other methods are more suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building; (d) the case study contains a bias toward verification; and (e) it is often difficult to summarize specific case studies. This article explains and corrects these misunderstandings one by one and concludes with the Kuhnian insight that a scientific discipline without a large number of thoroughly executed case studies is a discipline without systematic production of exemplars, and a discipline without exemplars is an ineffective one. Social science may be strengthened by the execution of a greater number of good case studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1077800405284363

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The triple initiative is considered a critical case in Flyvbjerg's sense, meaning the object of study will most likely show some of the characteristics of the outlined principles of participatory design.

    “the triple initiative is considered a critical case in Flyvbjerg's (2006) sense of the word, meaning that the object of study will most likely show some of the characteristics of the outlined principles of participatory design.”

    From Participatory design as concept and practice in the experimental museum: the case of the Workers Museum (2021) · cites this paper as Flyvbjerg, 2006

    In “Strategies for Case Selection” (p. 14), Flyvbjerg says a critical case has strategic importance for a general problem and may be selected as a “most likely” case. But he describes such cases as capable of clearly confirming or falsifying a proposition; merely expecting to find some characteristics does not fully capture that sense of a critical case. The classification of the triple initiative is the citing authors’ own application. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A small number of carefully chosen cases can serve as powerful heuristics when the settings are unusually revelatory, extreme, or information-rich.

    “In particular, a small number of carefully chosen cases can serve as powerful heuristics when the settings are unusually revelatory, extreme, or information-rich (Flyvbjerg, 2006).”

    From The Groupfeel syndrome: a theory of a counterproductive group emotion (2026) · cites this paper as Flyvbjerg, 2006

  • While the size of a focus group may make findings less representative than a survey or less in-depth compared to individual interviews, it has the advantage of bringing out several distinct voices who together create a negotiated and varied narrative.

    “While the size of a focus group may make findings less representative than a survey or less in-depth compared to individual interviews, it has the advantage of bringing out several distinct voices who together create a negotiated and varied narrative-a small sample or a case study may provide valuable qualitative information (Flyvbjerg, 2006).”

    From Artificial intelligence literacy in libraries (2023) · cites this paper as Flyvbjerg, 2006

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Flyvbjerg, B.
Affiliations
Aalborg University (DK)
Corresponding author
Flyvbjerg, Bent
Venue
Qualitative Inquiry
Published
2006-04
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
219-245
ISSN
  • 1077-8004 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7565
OpenAlex
W2174253539
Cited by
14,266
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 1346 · 2025: 811 · 2024: 782 · 2023: 847 · 2022: 925 · 2021: 955 · 2020: 1088 · 2019: 1018 · 2018: 907 · 2017: 849 · 2016: 859 · 2015: 778 · 2014: 708 · 2013: 621 · 2012: 527
FWCI
142.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Qualitative Inquiry (publishedVersion)
  • Sosiologisk tidsskrift (publishedVersion)
  • SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Oxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Studia Socjologiczne
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Methodology and Impact of Social Science Research
Keywords
case study research, single case study, generalizability, theory development, hypothesis generation, verification bias, exemplars, Kuhnian paradigm, scientific development, qualitative research methodology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review