The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Case Study Method in Social Inquiry
Abstract
It is widely believed that case studies are useful in the study of human affairs because they are down-to-earth and attention-holding but that they are not a suitable basis for generalization. In this paper, I claim that case studies will often be the preferred method of research because they may be epistemologically in harmony with the reader’s experience and thus to that person a natural basis for generalization.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and strategies
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004 · Cited by 1,767
Smith, B. (2018) · Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health · doi:10.1080/2159676x.2017.1393221 · Cited by 1,189
Research on Teachers' Pedagogical Thoughts, Judgments, Decisions, and Behavior
Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543051004455 · Cited by 1,113
Ennis, R. H. (1993) · Theory Into Practice · doi:10.1080/00405849309543594 · Cited by 1,101
(2003) · Digital Education Resource Archive (University College London) · Cited by 902
Metadata
- Authors
- STAKE, R. E.
- Venue
- Educational Researcher
- Published
- 1978-02
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 5-8
- ISSN
- 0013-189X (ISSN-L)
- 1935-102X
- OpenAlex
- W2024478733
- Cited by
- 1,426
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 69.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Case Study Method in Social Inquiry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3102/0013189x007002005
- The paper
- STAKE, R. E. (1978). The Case Study Method in Social Inquiry. Educational Researcher. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x007002005
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
