Research assumption

  • Home
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Search
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Announcements

Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research

Open Journal Systems
Journal Help
Journal Content


  • By Issue
  • By Author
  • By Title
  • By Identify Types
Font Size


  • For Readers
  • For Authors
  • For Librarians

Article Tools

Print this article
Indexing metadata
How to cite item
Finding References
Review policy

Email this article (Login required)

Email the author (Login required)

Current Issue

Atom logo

RSS2 logo

RSS1 logo

Usage Statistics Information

We log anonymous usage statistics. Please read the privacy information for details.

Home >
Vol 18, No 1 (2017) > Harrison

Volume 18, No. 1, Art. 19 – January 2017

Case Study Research: Foundations and Methodological Orientations

Helena Harrison, Melanie Birks, Richard Franklin & Jane Mills

Abstract: Over the last forty years, case study research has undergone substantial methodological development. This evolution has
resulted in a pragmatic, flexible research approach, capable of providing comprehensive in-depth understanding of a diverse
range of issues across a number of disciplines. Change and progress have stemmed from parallel influences of historical transformations
in approaches to research and individual researcher’s preferences, perspectives, and interpretations of this design. Researchers
who have contributed to the development of case study research come from diverse disciplines with different philosophical
perspectives, resulting in a variety of definitions and approaches. For the researcher new to using case study, such variety
can create a confusing platform for its application. In this article, we explore the evolution of case study research, discuss
methodological variations, and summarize key elements with the aim of providing guidance on the available options for researchers
wanting to use case study in their work.

Key words: case study; method; methodology; nursing research; qualitative; research design; research

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. History and Evolution

3. Foundational Concepts

3.1 Definitions and descriptions

3.2 Methodology or method

3.3 Philosophical orientation

3.4 Philosophical variation

3.4.1 YIN: Realist—postpositivist

3.4.2 MERRIAM: Pragmatic constructivist

3.4.3 STAKE: Relativist—constructivist/interpretivist

4. Common Characteristics of Case Study Research

5. Conclusion





1. Introduction

Case study research has grown in reputation as an effective methodology to investigate and understand complex issues in real
world settings. Case study designs have been used across a number of disciplines, particularly the social sciences, education,
business, law, and health, to address a wide range of research questions. Consequently, over the last 40 years, through the
application of a variety of methodological approaches, case study research has undergone substantial development. Change and
progress have stemmed from parallel influences from historical approaches to research and individual researcher’s preferences,
perspectives on, and interpretations of case study research. Central to these variations is the underpinning ontological and
epistemological orientations of those involved in the evolution of case study research. Researchers who have contributed to
the development of case study research come from diverse disciplines and their philosophical underpinnings have created variety
and diversity in approaches used. Consequently, various designs have been proposed for preparing, planning, and conducting
case study research with advice on key considerations for achieving success. As a result, while case study research has evolved
to be a pragmatic, flexible research approach, the variation in definition, application, validity, and purposefulness can
create a confusing platform for its use. [1]

In this article, we examine each of these issues in turn, with the aim of improving our understanding of case study research
and clarifying the requisite tenets to consider when designing a case study. We begin with an overview of the history and
evolution of case study research, followed by a discussion of the methodological and philosophical variations found within
case study designs. We end with a summary of the common characteristics of case study research and a table that brings together
the fundamental elements that we found common in all case study approaches to research. [2]

2. History and Evolution

Case study research as a strategy for methodological exploration, according to FLYVBJERG (2011) “has been around as long as
recorded history” (p.302). Contemporary case study research is said to have its origins in qualitative approaches to research
in the disciplines of anthropology, history, psychology, and sociology (MERRIAM, 1998; SIMONS, 2009; STEWART, 2014). Historical
examples of case study stem as far back as the early nineteenth century with the biography of Charles DARWIN (STEWART, 2014).
Most attribute the origins of case study research to studies undertaken in anthropology and social sciences in the early twentieth
century when lengthy, detailed ethnographic studies of individuals and cultures were conducted using this design (JOHANSSON,
2003, MERRIAM, 2009; SIMONS, 2009; STEWART, 2014). Sociologists and anthropologists investigated people’s lives, experiences,
and how they understood the social and cultural context of their world, with the aim of gaining insight into how individuals
interpreted and attributed meaning to their experiences and constructed their worlds (JOHANSSON, 2003; SIMONS, 2009). Such
investigations were conducted in the natural setting of those experiences with results presented descriptively or as a narrative
(MERRIAM, 2009). The most notable case studies include THOMAS and ZNANIECKI’s (1958 1919) study of Polish peasants
in Europe and America and, the ethnographic work by MALINOWSKI (1913) in the Trobriand Islands in Melanesia that spanned over
several years (CRESWELL, HANSON, PLANO CLARK & MORALES, 2007; JOHANSSON, 2003; STEWART, 2014). [3]

With the emergence and dominance of positivism in science in the late 1940s and 1950s, quantitative methods became a popular
focus for the social sciences. As a result, surveys, experiments, and statistical methods anchored in quantitative approaches
were favored and considered more rigorous than qualitative designs (JOHANSSON, 2003). The dominance of research using experimental
designs continued through the 1960s and 1970s with quantitative empirical results considered to be gold standard evidence.
Case studies continued to be used during this time, however usually as a method within quantitative studies or referred to
as descriptive research to study a specific phenomenon (MERRIAM, 2009). At the same time, case study research was often criticized
for its inability to support generalizability and thus considered to provide limited validity and value as a research design
(JOHANSSON, 2003; MERRIAM, 2009; STEWART, 2014). This context led to a philosophical division in research approaches: those
supporting positivism and quantitative approaches and those aligned with qualitative methods embedded in constructivist and
interpretivist paradigms. [4]

Antecedents of modern day case study research are most often cited as being conducted in the Chicago School of Sociology between
the 1920-1950s (STEWART, 2014). Here, anthropologists practiced their methods on university cultures or by conducting lengthy
case studies involving field-based observations of groups with the aim of understanding their social and cultural lives (CRESWELL
et al., 2007; JOHANSSON, 2003; STEWART, 2014). Parallel to the use of case studies in anthropology, medicine and disciplines
in the social sciences such as sociology, education and political science also embraced case study as a form of inquiry (ANTHONY
& JACK, 2009; BROWN, 2008; CRESWELL et al., 2007; GEORGE & BENNETT, 2005; GERRING, 2004; SIMONS, 2009; YIN, 2014). [5]

A second generation of case study researchers emerged with the advent of grounded theory methodology (GLASER & STRAUSS, 1967).
Grounded theory “merged qualitative field study methods from the Chicago School of Sociology with quantitative methods of
data analysis” (JOHANSSON, 2003, p.8), resulting in an inductive methodology that used detailed systematic procedures to analyze
data. This renewed interest in qualitative methodology led to a revival in the use of case study in a number of disciplines
(ANTHONY & JACK, 2009; GEORGE & BENNETT, 2005; JOHANSSON, 2003; MERRIAM, 2009; STAKE, 1995). According to JOHANSSON (2003),
Robert YIN followed this progress, and drawing on scientific approaches to research gained from his background in the social
sciences, applied experimental logic to naturalistic inquiry, and blended this with qualitative methods, further bridging
the methodological gap and strengthening the methodological quality of case study research. He presented a structured process
for undertaking case study research where formal propositions or theories guide the research process and are tested as part
of the outcome, highlighting his realist approach to qualitative case study research. While still qualitative and inductive,
it was deterministic in nature with an emphasis on cause and effect, testing theories, and an apprehension of the truth (BROWN,
2008; YIN, 2014). [6]

Similarly, the uptake of case study research in the political sciences, particularly during the 1980’s and 1990’s, led to
a more integrated methodological approach with the aim of theoretical development and testing (GEORGE & BENNETT, 2005). The
integration of formal, statistical, and narrative methods in a single study, combined with the use of empirical methods for
case selection and causal inference, demonstrated the versatility of case study design and made a significant contribution
to its methodological evolution (ibid.). Similarly, case studies in international relations integrated rigorous, standardized
methods with statistical and formal methods, including qualitative comparative analysis and process tracing to improve understanding
of world politics (BENNETT & ELMAN, 2007; GERRING, 2004; LEVY, 2007). According to GEORGE and BENNETT (2005) “scholars have
formalized case study methods more completely and linked them to underlying arguments in the philosophy of science” (p.6).
The continued use of case study to understand the complexities of institutions, practices, processes, and relations in politics,
has demonstrated the utility of case study for researching complex issues, and testing causal mechanisms that can be applied
across varied disciplines. [7]

Corresponding with these developments, in the 1970’s, educational research embraced case study as a way to evaluate curriculum
design and innovation (MERRIAM, 2009; SIMONS, 2009; STAKE, 1995). Methods were required that could be used to explore factors
such as participants’ perspectives and the influence of socio-political contexts on curriculum successes and failures (SIMONS,
2009). Development of case study research in education, focused on the need to determine the impact of educational programs
and provide relevant evidence for policy and practice decisions that supported social and educational change in the United
Kingdom and the United States (ibid.). The most significant contributors to this field were STAKE (1995, 2006) and MERRIAM
(1998, 2009). STAKE (1995), an educational psychologist with an interest in developing program evaluation methods, used a
constructivist orientation to case study. This resulted in placing more emphasis on inductive exploration, discovery, and
holistic analysis that was presented in thick descriptions of the case. Similarly, MERRIAM (1998, 2009) used case study research
to explore and evaluate educational programs. MERRIAM’s approach emphasized defining and understanding the case through the
products of inquiry and drew on the work of both YIN and STAKE. MERRIAM (2009) described case study research by its characteristics:
particularistic, descriptive and heuristic, highlighting the purpose and qualitative nature of case study research, the focus
on a specific entity and, the motivation to understand and describe the findings. Similar to STAKE (1995, 2006), MERRIAM (1998,
2009) was not as structured in her approach as YIN (2014), but promoted the use of a theoretical framework or research questions
to guide the case study and organized, systematic data collection to manage the process of inquiry. [8]

Simple in theory yet complex in nature, the planning, preparation and execution of case study research has developed to a
point where the continued application of case study research across a number of professions particularly education, health,
and social sciences, has provided a unique platform for credible research endeavors. Case study research has grown in sophistication
and is viewed as a valid form of inquiry to explore a broad scope of complex issues, particularly when human behavior and
social interactions are central to understanding topics of interest (ANTHONY & JACK, 2009; FLYVBJERG, 2011; GEORGE & BENNETT,
2005; LUCK, JACKSON & USHER, 2006; MERRIAM, 2009; STAKE, 2006; YIN, 2014). [9]

In Figure 1, developed by JOHANSSON (2003) and adapted for this discussion, a summary of the evolution of case study across
a timeline dating back to 1600 is displayed. Key contributors to case study research and major contextual influences on its
evolution are included. As the figure highlights, early case studies were conducted in the social sciences. With the dominance
of logical positivism from the 1940’s through to the 1960’s and 1970’s case study methodology was viewed with skepticism and
criticism. The development of grounded theory in the 1960’s led to a resurgence in case study research, with its application
in the social sciences, education, and the humanities. Over the last 50 years, case study has been re-established as a credible,
valid research design that facilitates the exploration of complex issues.

Figure 1: The history and evolution of case study research (JOHANSSON, 2003, p.7) [10]

3. Foundational Concepts

While over time the contributions of researchers from varied disciplines have helped to develop and strengthen case study
research, the variety of disciplinary backgrounds has also added complexity, particularly around how case study research is
defined, described, and applied in practice. In the sections that follow, the nature of this complexity in explored. [11]

3.1 Definitions and descriptions

There are a number of definitions and descriptions presented across the literature, which can create confusion when attempting
to understand case study research. The most common definitions come from the work of YIN (2014), STAKE (1995), and MERRIAM
(2009). YIN’s two-part definition (2014) focuses on the scope, process, and methodological characteristics of case study research,
emphasizing the nature of inquiry as being empirical, and the importance of context to the case. On the other hand, STAKE
(1995) takes a more flexible stance and while concerned with rigor in the processes, maintains a focus on what is studied
(the case) rather than how it is studied (the method). For STAKE case study research is “the study of the particularity and
complexity of a single case, coming to understand its activity within important circumstances” (p.xi). MERRIAM (2009) includes
what is studied and the products of the research when defining case study as: “… an in depth description and analysis of
a bounded system” (p.40). Like STAKE, MERRIAM emphasizes the defining feature of case study research as being the object of
the study (the bounded system; i.e., the case) adding that case study research focuses on a particular thing and that the
product of an investigation should be descriptive and heuristic in nature. In discussing the proliferation of definitions
(and subsequent confusion), FLYVBJERG (2011) contends that using a simple definition might be a more useful approach, citing
the MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY’s (2009) definition, as an example that captures the key requisites in the context of research:
“an intensive analysis of an individual unit (as a person or community) stressing developmental factors in relation to environment”
(p.103). These varied definitions stem from the researchers’ differing approaches to developing case study methodology and
often reflect the elements they emphasize as central to their designs. The diversity of approaches subsequently adds diversity
to definition and description. [12]

3.2 Methodology or method

A further challenge to understanding case study research relates to it being referred to and used as both a methodology and
a method. MILLS (2014) distinguishes methods as procedures and techniques employed in the study, while methodology is the
lens through which the researcher views and makes decisions about the study. Given the variation in definitions and descriptions,
referring to case study research as a methodology and/or a single method can be perplexing, misleading, and at times counterproductive
(ANTHONY & JACK, 2009; BOBLIN, IRELAND, KIRKPATRICK & ROBERTSON, 2013; FLYVBJERG, 2011). Furthermore, advocates of case study
encourage the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods within their designs adding further obscurity to the question
of methodology (MERRIAM, 1998; STAKE, 1995; STEWART, 2014; YIN, 2014). [13]

The ambiguity about case study being either or both a methodology and method, is compounded by the terminology used in discussions
about case study. Across the literature, case study is referred to as a methodology and a method, an approach, research and
research design, research strategy, and/or a form of inquiry (ANTHONY & JACK, 2009; BROWN, 2008; CRESWELL, 2014; GERRING,
2004; MERRIAM, 2009; SIMONS, 2009, STAKE, 1995, 2006; STEWART, 2014; YIN, 2014). Often these terms are used interchangeably
without definitional clarity. For example, YIN (2014) discusses case study research and in the context of presenting case
study, refers to it as a research method while emphasizing the procedures used. He does not use the terms methodology or strategy.
CRESWELL (2014) refers to case studies as a qualitative design, while others use the term case study (FLYVBJERG, 2011; STAKE,
1995, 2006; STEWART, 2014), qualitative case study (MERRIAM, 2009), or describe case study as an approach (SIMONS, 2009).
This mixed use of terminology is confusing given the definitional separations between methodology and methods and the varied
application of case study in research endeavors. [14]

Prominent case study researchers do however emphasize that an overarching methodology shapes a case study design and that
multiple sources of data and methods can be used (MERRIAM, 2009; STAKE, 2006; YIN, 2014), thus providing the distinction between
the two. This distinction accentuates the need for researchers to describe the particular underpinning methodology adopted
and to clarify the alignment of chosen methods used with their philosophical assumptions and their chosen approach. Exploring
the philosophical orientation of case study research and variations in different case study approaches can help to clarify
these differences, and promote a better understanding of how to apply these principles in practice. [15]

3.3 Philosophical orientation

Many methodologies are aligned with specific philosophical positions that guide the research process. Case study, however,
has a practical versatility in its agnostic approach whereby “it is not assigned to a fixed ontological, epistemological or
methodological position” (ROSENBERG & YATES, 2007, p.447). Philosophically, case study research can be orientated from a realist
or positivist perspective where the researcher holds the view that there is one single reality, which is independent of the
individual and can be apprehended, studied and measured, through to a relativist or interpretivist perspective. A relativist
or interpretivist perspective adopts the premises that multiple realities and meanings exist, which depend on and are co-created
by the researcher (LINCOLN, LYNHAM & GUBA, 2011; YIN, 2014). This philosophical versatility provides the researcher with the
opportunity to decide the methodological orientation used in the conduct of the case study (STEWART, 2014; YIN, 2014). Examples
of this choice are discussed later where the philosophical variations of MERRIAM (2009), STAKE (1995), and YIN (2014) are
explicated. [16]

In the context of healthcare research and specifically nursing, LUCK et al. (2006) describe case study research as “a bridge
across paradigms” (p.103). As a result, some case study approaches are either quantitatively or qualitatively orientated while
others encompass both qualitative and quantitative aims and methods (MERRIAM, 2009; MILES, HUBERMAN & SALDANA, 2014; YIN,
2014). DENZIN and LINCOLN (2011) emphasize the qualitative essence of case study, while acknowledging its evolution and fluidity
with regard to accommodating varied ontologies, epistemologies, methodologies, and methods. This ability to accommodate a
range of philosophical positions is seen as an advantage whereby case study enables the opportunity to design research that
can be specifically tailored to the inherent complexity of the research problem (ANTHONY & JACK, 2009; CASEY & HOUGHTON, 2010;
FLYVBJERG, 2011; FARQUHAR, 2012; LUCK et al., 2006; MERRIAM, 2009; STAKE, 2006; YIN, 2014). [17]

Case study research is most often described as qualitative inquiry (CRESWELL, 2014; DENZIN & LINCOLN, 2011; MERRIAM, 2009;
MILES et al., 2014; STAKE, 2006). Qualitative paradigms are broad and can encompass exploratory, explanatory, interpretive,
or descriptive aims. Examples include narrative research, phenomenology, grounded theory, and ethnography (DENZIN & LINCOLN,
2011). Each methodology is unique in approach depending on the ontological and epistemological stance, however all stem from
the motivation to explore, seek understanding, and establish the meaning of experiences from the perspective of those involved
(ibid.; see also MERRIAM, 2009). For this purpose, qualitative researchers can employ a broad scope of methods and interpretative
practices in any one study, although they typically include observations, interviews, and analysis of participants’ words
(DENZIN & LINCOLN, 2011; MERRIAM, 2009). DENZIN and LINCOLN (2011, pp. 8-10) summarize the characteristics of qualitative
research into five key attributes:

  • reducing the use of positivist or post positivist perspectives;

  • accepting postmodern sensibilities;

  • capturing the individual’s point of view;

  • examining the constraints of everyday life;

  • securing rich descriptions. [18]

These attributes are commonly exemplified in case study research. The fundamental goal of case study research is to conduct
an in-depth analysis of an issue, within its context with a view to understand the issue from the perspective of participants
(MERRIAM, 2009; SIMONS, 2009; STAKE, 2006, YIN, 2014). Like other forms of qualitative research, the researcher will seek
to explore, understand and present the participants’ perspectives and get close to them in their natural setting (CRESWELL,
2013). Interaction between participants and the researcher is required to generate data, which is an indication of the researcher’s
level of connection to and being immersed in the field. Because of this, constructivism and interpretivism commonly permeate
the implementation of this research design. Methods used in case study to facilitate achieving the aim of co-constructing
data most often include observations, interviews, focus groups, document and artifact analysis (MERRIAM, 2009; SIMONS, 2009;
STAKE, 1995; 2006; STEWART, 2014; YIN, 2014). The researcher’s perceptions and interpretations become part of the research
and as a result, a subjective and interpretive orientation flows throughout the inquiry (CRESWELL, 2014). Subjectivity is
openly acknowledged and to manage this, the researcher embraces a reflexive stance within the study, adopting methods such
as memoing and journaling that support this position (DENZIN & LINCOLN, 2011; MILES et al., 2014, STAKE, 2006; YIN, 2014).

3.4 Philosophical variation

In choosing a methodological position, careful consideration of the different case study approaches is required to determine
the design that best addresses the aim of the study, and that aligns with the researcher’s worldview. The goal of this alignment
is to engender coherence between the researcher’s philosophical position, their research question, design, and methods to
be used in the study (FARQUHAR, 2012; LUCK et al., 2006; STEWART, 2014; YIN, 2014). To assist in understanding and achieving
this alignment, the qualitative case study approaches developed by YIN (2014), STAKE (1995) and MERRIAM (1998, 2009) are explored
in the following sections. Examples are provided of how these researchers’ philosophical orientation influences the application
of case study in practice. [20]

3.4.1 YIN: Realist—postpositivist

YIN (2014) conceptualizes case study research as a form of social science. Post-positivism is evident in how he defines “case
study as a form of empirical inquiry” (p.16). YIN himself describes his approach to case study as using a “realist perspective”
(p.17) and focuses on maintaining objectivity in the methodological processes within the design. [21]

Postpositivist qualitative researchers conduct research that embraces the ideals of objectivity and the generalizability of
results (ELLINGSON, 2011). The goal of a postpositivist researcher is to use science as a way to apprehend the nature of reality
while understanding that all measurement is imperfect. Therefore, emphasis is placed on using multiple methods with triangulation
to circumvent errors and understand what is happening in reality as close as possible to the “truth” (LINCOLN et al., 2011).
The researcher will often categorize qualitative data to create quantitative data that can then be analyzed using statistical
methods. Validity of research results are verified through the scrutiny of others and, as such, adherence to mechanisms that
ensure rigor in data collection and analysis is vital. Furthermore, postpositivists accept that everyone is inherently biased
in worldviews, which ultimately influence how the methods used are deployed. Interaction with research subjects therefore
needs to be minimized and subjectivity managed to avoid biasing the results (ibid.). [22]

Embedded within YIN’s (2014) case study design are the hallmarks of a postpositivist approach to research: seeking rival explanations
and falsifying hypotheses, the capability for replication with a multiple case study design, the pursuit of generalizations
(if required), minimizing levels of subjectivity, and the use of multiple methods of qualitative and quantitative data collection
and analysis. While objectivity is a goal, YIN also recognizes the descriptive and interpretive elements of case study. According
to YIN what makes case study research distinct from experimental studies is the case study is investigated in context, examined
in its “real world setting” (p.16). Selection of cases is based on the purpose of the research and related to the theoretical
propositions about the topic of interest. YIN suggests careful screening in the selection of cases to ensure specific relevance
to the issues of interest and the use of replication logic: cases are chosen to produce anticipated contrasting findings (theoretical
replication) or similar findings (literal replication). Precision, process, and practicality are core attributes of YIN’s
approach to case study. Design features are sequentially structured and motivated by empirical application. This positioning
reflects the axiology of postpositivism where maintaining intellectual honesty, managing bias, and acknowledging limitations,
coupled with meticulous data collection and accurate reporting are critical elements in the conduct of research (KILLAM, 2013;
YIN, 2014). [23]

3.4.2 MERRIAM: Pragmatic constructivist

MERRIAM (1998) maintains a constructivist approach to case study research, whereby the researcher assumes that reality is
constructed intersubjectively through meanings and understandings developed socially and experientially. Like YIN (2014),
MERRIAM (1998, 2009) asserts that when information is plentiful and concepts abstract, it is important to utilize processes
that help interpret, sort, and manage information and that adapt findings to convey clarity and applicability to the results.
In this way, MERRIAM’s perspective brings forth a pragmatic approach to constructivist inquiry. MERRIAM (2009) acknowledges
case study research can use both quantitative and qualitative methods; however, when working on qualitative case studies,
methods aimed at generating inductive reasoning and interpretation rather than testing hypothesis take priority. Cases are
selected based on the research purpose and question, and for what they could reveal about the phenomenon or topic of interest.
The aim is to provide a rich holistic description that illuminates one’s understanding of the phenomena (MERRIAM, 1998). Interviews
are the most common form of qualitative data collection, although MERRIAM does not stipulate prioritizing a particular method
for data collection or analysis, she does emphasize the importance of rigorous procedures to frame the research process. Advocating
for careful planning, development, and execution of case study research, MERRIAM (1998, 2009) discusses the pragmatic structures
that ensure case study research is manageable, rigorous, credible, and applicable. Processes such as descriptive, thematic
and content analysis, and triangulation are significant in ensuring the quality of a study, therefore, methods of data collection
and analysis need to be organized and systematized with a detailed chain of evidence (MERRIAM, 2009). Theoretical frameworks
or research questions are used and drawn from the literature or discipline (MERRIAM, 1998). According to BROWN (2008), Merriam’s
style brings forth a practical application of pluralistic strategies that guide pragmatic constructivist research to derive
knowledge about an area of inquiry. [24]

3.4.3 STAKE: Relativist—constructivist/interpretivist

STAKE (1995, 2006) has an approach to case study research that is qualitative and closely aligned with a constructivist and
interpretivist orientation. While having a disciplined approach to the process and acknowledging that case study can use quantitative
methods, STAKE’s approach is underpinned by a strong motivation for discovering meaning and understanding of experiences in
context. The role of the researcher in producing this knowledge is critical, and STAKE emphasizes the researcher’s interpretive
role as essential in the process. An interpretative position views reality as multiple and subjective, based on meanings and
understanding. Knowledge generated from the research process is relative to the time and context of the study and the researcher
is interactive and participates in the study. In terms of epistemology, STAKE argues that situation shapes activity, experience,
and one’s interpretation of the case. For STAKE (2006), to understand the case “requires experiencing the activity of the
case as it occurs in its context and in its particular situation” (p.2). The researcher attempts to capture her or his interpreted
reality of the case, while studying the case situationally enables an examination of the integrated system in which the case
unfolds. Similar to YIN (2014) and MERRIAM (2009), a case or cases are selected for what they can reveal about topic of interest
and depend on the aim and conditions of the study. A case is selected because it is interesting in itself or can facilitate
the understanding of something else; it is instrumental in providing insight on an issue (STAKE, 2006). [25]

For STAKE, multiple sources and methods of data collection and analysis can be used, however, interviews and observations
are the preferred and dominant data collection method. In seeking understanding and meaning, the researcher is positioned
with participants as a partner in the discovery and generation of knowledge, where both direct interpretations, and categorical
or thematic grouping of findings are used. STAKE (1995) recommends vignettes—episodes of storytelling—to illustrate aspects
of the case and thick descriptions to convey findings, a further illustration of his constructivist and interpretivist approach
to case study research. [26]

BROWN (2007) suggests the three approaches used by these seminal researchers rest along a quantitative-qualitative continuum
where the postpositivist methodology of YIN (2014) sits at one end, STAKE’s interpretivist design (1995, 2006) sits at the
other end and MERRIAM (1998, 2009) who as a pragmatic constructivist draws on the elements of both, rests toward the center.
BROWN (2008) sums up the influences of each, saying that “case study research is supported by the pragmatic approach of Merriam,
informed by the rigour of Yin and enriched by the creative interpretation described by Stake” (p.9). While some may argue
that mixing qualitative and quantitative methods could threaten the veracity of the research (BOBLIN et al., 2013; SANDELOWSKI,
2011), MERRIAM’s approach demonstrates that when the integrity of the design is robust, methodological flexibility can be
accommodated. [27]

4. Common Characteristics of Case Study Research

Despite variation in the approaches of the different exponents of case study, there are characteristics common to all of them.
Case study research is consistently described as a versatile form of qualitative inquiry most suitable for a comprehensive,
holistic, and in-depth investigation of a complex issue (phenomena, event, situation, organization, program individual or
group) in context, where the boundary between the context and issue is unclear and contains many variables (CRESWELL, 2014;
FLYVBJERG, 2011; MERRIAM, 2009; SIMONS, 2009; STAKE, 2006; YIN, 2014). Case study research can be used to study a range of
topics and purposes (SIMONS, 2009; STAKE, 2006; STEWART, 2014) however, the essential requisite for employing case study stems
from one’s motivation to illuminate understanding of complex phenomena (MERRIAM, 2009; STAKE, 2006; YIN, 2014). Primarily
exploratory and explanatory in nature, case study is used to gain an understanding of the issue in real life settings and recommended to answer how and why or less frequently what research questions (FLYVBJERG, 2011; MERRIAM, 2009; SIMONS, 2009; STAKE, 2006; STEWART, 2014; YIN 2014). [28]

Defining the case (unit of analysis or object of the study) and bounding the case can be difficult as many points of interest
and variables intersect and overlap in case study research. Developing research questions and/or propositions to select the
case, identify the focus, and refine the boundaries is recommended to effectively establish these elements in the research
design (MERRIAM, 2009; STAKE, 2006; YIN, 2014). Bounding the case is essential to focusing, framing, and managing data collection
and analysis. This involves being selective and specific in identifying the parameters of the case including the participant/s,
location and/or process to be explored, and establishing the timeframe for investigating the case (MERRIAM, 2009; STAKE, 2006;
YIN, 2014). [29]

The use of multiple methods to collect and analyze data are encouraged and found to be mutually informative in case study
research where together they provide a more synergistic and comprehensive view of the issue being studied (FLYVBJERG, 2011;
MERRIAM, 2009; STAKE, 2006; YIN, 2014). How the methods are used will vary and depend on the research purpose and design,
which is often a variation of a single or multiple case study research design. Interviews and focus groups, observations,
and exploring artifacts are most commonly employed to collect and generate data with triangulation of methods and data, however,
this is not exclusive. [30]

The fundamental elements of case study research (Table 1) are evident in the approaches of MERRIAM (2009), STAKE (1995, 2006),
and YIN (2014) as well as other case study researchers who have contributed to the development and discussion of case study
research (CRESWELL, 2013, 2014; FLYVBJERG, 2011; GEORGE & BENNETT, 2007; MILES et al., 2014; SIMONS, 2009). These elements
delineate case study from other forms of research and inform the critical aspects of the research design and execution.



The case

Object of the case study identified as the entity of interest or unit of analysis

Program, individual, group, social situation, organization, event, phenomena, or process

A bounded system

Bounded by time, space, and activity

Encompasses a system of connections

Bounding applies frames to manage contextual variables

Boundaries between the case and context can be blurred

Studied in context

Studied in its real life setting or natural environment

Context is significant to understanding the case

Contextual variables include political, economic, social, cultural, historical, and/or organizational factors

In-depth study

Chosen for intensive analysis of an issue

Fieldwork is intrinsic to the process of the inquiry

Subjectivity a consistent thread—varies in depth and engagement depending on the philosophical orientation of the research,
purpose, and methods

Reflexive techniques pivotal to credibility and research process

Selecting the case

Based on the purpose and conditions of the study

Involves decisions about people, settings, events, phenomena, social processes

Scope: single, within case and multiple case sampling

Broad: capture ordinary, unique, varied and/or accessible aspects

Methods: specified criteria, methodical and purposive; replication logic: theoretical or literal replication (YIN, 2014)

Multiple sources of evidence

Multiple sources of evidence for comprehensive depth and breadth of inquiry

Methods of data collection: interviews, observations, focus groups, artifact and document review, questionnaires and/or surveys

Methods of analysis: vary and depend on data collection methods and cases; need to be systematic and rigorous

Triangulation highly valued and commonly employed

Case study design

Descriptive, exploratory, explanatory, illustrative, evaluative

Single or multiple cases

Embedded or holistic (YIN, 2014)

Particularistic, heuristic, descriptive (MERRIAM, 1998, 2009)

Intrinsic, instrumental, and collective (STAKE, 1995, 2006)

Table 1: Case study elements and descriptors [31]

A final, critical point when conducting case study research is the importance of careful preparation and planning, coupled
with the development of a systematic implementation structure (FLYVBJERG, 2011; MERRIAM, 2009; STAKE, 2006; STEWART, 2014;
YIN, 2014). As discussed earlier, ensuring the alignment of philosophy and methodology with the research purpose and methods
employed underpins a rigorous research process (STEWART, 2014). Clarity in this alignment is fundamental to ensuring the veracity
of the research and depends on the design developed. During this process, researchers are encouraged to “logically justify
their philosophical position, research design and include a coherent argument for inclusion of varying research methods” (LUCK
et al., 2006, p.107). Study propositions, theory, research or issue questions work as a conceptual framework and need to align
with the case to guide the design and determine methods of data collection and analysis (STAKE, 2006; STEWART, 2014; YIN,
2014). Maintaining meticulous records and a systematic chain of evidence over the duration of the study is critical; as is
being able to access, present and explain procedures supports the ethical integrity and rigor of the research and findings
(MERRIAM, 2009; STEWART, 2014; YIN, 2014). Collective alignment of these elements articulates a justifiable framework for
the research study and cultivates trustworthiness and the validity, reliability and credibility of the research findings.

Considering these fundamental elements and common approaches to case study research, the definition from CRESWELL et al. (2007)
seems to best capture the full depth and breadth of case study concepts and descriptions. The authors describe case study
as “a methodology, a type of design in qualitative research, an object of study and a product of the inquiry” (p.245). They
conclude with a definition that collates the hallmarks of key approaches and represents the core features of a case study:

“Case study research is a qualitative approach in which the investigator explores a bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded
systems (cases) over time through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information (e.g., observations,
interviews, audiovisual material, and documents and reports) and reports a case description and case-based themes” (ibid.).

5. Conclusion

Since the 1980’s a broad scope of case study approaches have developed. This range accentuates the flexibility of case study
research as a distinct form of inquiry that enables comprehensive and in-depth insight into a diverse range of issues across
a number of disciplines. While differences exist in some areas, commonalities are evident that can guide the application of
a case study research design. Key contributors to the development of case study agree that the focus of a case study is the
detailed inquiry of a unit of analysis as a bounded system (the case), over time, within its context. The versatility of case
study research to accommodate the researcher’s philosophical position presents a unique platform for a range of studies that
can generate greater insights into areas of inquiry. With the capacity to tailor approaches, case study designs can address
a wide range of questions that ask why, what, and how of an issue and assist researchers to explore, explain, describe, evaluate,
and theorize about complex issues in context. Outcomes can lead to an in-depth understanding of behaviors, processes, practices,
and relationships in context. Professions including the social sciences, education, health, law, management, business, and
urban planning have embraced case study research, demonstrating these outcomes. Ongoing application of and sound debate about
the value, validity, and capability of case study research have strengthened the efficacy of case study approaches as powerful
forms of qualitative research. [34]


Anthony, Susan & Jack, Susan (2009). Qualitative case study methodology in nursing research: An integrative review. Journal of advanced nursing, 65(6), 1171-1181. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.04998.x

Bennett, Andrew & Elman, Colin (2007). Case study methods in the international relations subfield. Comparative Political Studies, 40(2), 170-195. doi: 10.1177/0010414006296346

Boblin, Sheryl L; Ireland, Sandra; Kirkpatrick, Helen & Robertson, Kim (2013). Using Stake’s qualitative case study approach
to explore implementation of evidence-based practice. Qualitative Health Research, 23(9), 1267-1275. doi: 10.1177/1049732313502128

Brown, Louise (2008). A review of the literature on case study research. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 1(1), 1-13.

Casey, Dympna & Houghton, Catherine (2010). Clarifying case study research: Examples from practice. Nurse Researcher, 17(3), 41-51.

Creswell, John W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, John W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, John W.; Hanson, William E.; Plano Clark, Vicki L. & Morales, Alejandro (2007). Qualitative research designs: Selection
and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236-264. doi: 10.1177/0011000006287390

Denzin, Norman K. & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (2011). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna
S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp.1-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ellingson, Laura L. (2011). Analysis and representation across a continuum. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp.595-610). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Farquhar, Jillian D. (2012). What is case study research? In Jillian D. Farquhar (Ed.), Case study research for business (pp.3-14). London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781446287910.n2

Flyvbjerg, Bent (2011). Case study. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp.301-316). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Glaser, Barney G. & Strauss, Anselm L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Pub. Co.

George, Alexander L. & Bennett, Andrew (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences (4th ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gerring, John (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for?. American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341-354. doi:10.1017/S0003055404001182

Johansson, Rolf (2003). Key note speech at the international conference “Methodologies in Housing Research,” Royal Institute of Technology in cooperation with the International Association of People–Environment Studies, Stockholm,
September 22-24, 2003, [Accessed: December, 19, 2016].

Killam, Laura (2013). Research terminology simplified: Paradigms, ontology, epistemology and methodology. Sudbury, ON: Author. [Kindle DX version]

Levy, Jack S. (2007). Qualitative methods and cross-method dialogue in political science. Comparative Political Studies, 40(2), 196-214. doi: 10.1177/0010414006296348

Lincoln, Yvonna S.; Lynham, Susan A. & Guba, Egon G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences,
revisited in qualitative research. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp.97-128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Luck, Lauretta; Jackson, Debra & Usher, Kim (2006). Case study: A bridge across the paradigms. Nursing Inquiry, 13(2), 103-109. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1800.2006.00309.x

Malinowski, Bronislaw (2013). The family among the Australian Aborigines: A sociological study. London: University of London Press.

Merriam, Sharan B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Merriam, Sharan B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, Matthew B.; Huberman, A. Michael & Saldana, Johnny (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mills, Jane (2014). Methodology and methods. In Jane Mills & Melanie Birks (Eds.), Qualitative methodology: A practical guide (pp.31-47). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rosenberg, John P. & Yates, Patsy M. (2007). Schematic representation of case study research designs. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(4), 447-452. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04385.x

Sandelowski, Margarete (2011). Casing the research case study. Research in Nursing & Health, 34(2), 153-159. doi: 10.1002/nur.20421

Simons, Helen (2009). Case study research in practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Stake, Robert E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stake, Robert E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.

Stewart, Alison (2014). Case study. In Jane Mills & Melanie Birks (Eds.), Qualitative methodology: A practical guide (pp.145-159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Thomas, William I. & Znaniecki, Florian (1958 1918). The Polish peasant in Europe and America. New York: Dover Publications.

Yin, Robert K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.


Helena HARRISON, MN(Ed) is a PhD candidate in the College of Healthcare Sciences, Division of Tropical Health and Medicine, James Cook University,
Australia. Her research interests include undergraduate and postgraduate nurse education with her current study focusing on
the practice readiness of new graduate registered nurses in Australia.


Helena Harrison

Nursing, Midwifery & Nutrition
College of Healthcare Sciences
Division of Tropical Health and Medicine
James Cook University
Angus Smith Drive, Douglas, QLD, Australia 4811

E-mail: [email protected]


Melanie Birks, PhD is professor and Head of Nursing, Midwifery and Nutrition at James Cook University, Australia. Her research interests
are in the areas of accessibility, innovation, relevance and quality in nursing education.


Melanie Birks

Nursing, Midwifery & Nutrition
College of Healthcare Sciences
Division of Tropical Health and Medicine
James Cook University
Angus Smith Drive, Douglas, QLD, Australia 4811

Tel: +61-7- 4781- 4544

E-mail: [email protected]


Richard Franklin, Ph.D. is an associate professor at the College of Public Health, Medical & Veterinary Sciences at James Cook University.
Richard’s public health projects have explored injury prevention and safety promotion and focused areas of farm safety, rural
safety, occupational health and safety, falls, disasters, health promotion, and alcohol and aquatic safety. Richard’s research
interests include translating evidence into practice, epidemiological, program and product evaluation, surveillance and using
mixed methods research for solving real world problems.


Richard Franklin

Public Health & Tropical Medicine
Building 41, Room 213
College of Public Health, Medical & Veterinary Sciences
Division of Tropical Health and Medicine
James Cook University
Angus Smith Drive, Douglas, QLD, Australia 4811

Tel: +61-7- 4781 5939

E-mail: [email protected]


Jane Mills, PhD is professor and Pro Vice Chancellor of the College of Health at Massey University in New Zealand. Her research interests
are primary health care, public health and health systems strengthening.


Jane Mills

College of Health
Massey University
Private Bag 102904
North Shore Auckland, New Zealand, 0745

Tel.: +64 9 414 0800 extn 49087

E-mail: [email protected]


Harrison, Helena; Birks, Melanie; Franklin, Richard & Mills, Jane (2017). Case Study Research: Foundations and Methodological
Orientations [34 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 18(1), Art. 19,

Site hosted by Build your free website today!

Site hosted by Build your free website today!

Assumptions that the researcher needs to be aware of
when conducting such research:

As a researcher plans
a qualitative case study procedure, it might prove useful to review the
qualitative paradigm assumptions underlying qualitative case study research.
Creswell (1994) suggests, for audiences not familiar with qualitative
research, to discuss four or five underlying assumptions and refer to
the distinctions between qualitative and quantitative research. Two approaches
may be used. For the more philosophically sophisticated audiences, assumptions
can be discussed based on ontological, epistemological, axiological, rhetorical
and methodological approaches. The following table may be useful as a



Ontological Assumption

What is the nature of reality?Reality is objective and singular, apart from
the researcher.
Reality is subjective and multiple as seen
by participants in a study
Epistemological AssumptionWhat is the relationship of the researcher
to that researched?
Researcher is independent from that being researched.Researcher interacts with that being researched.
Axiological AssumptionWhat is the role of values?Value-free and unbiasedValue-laden and biased
Rhetorical AssumptionWhat is the language of research?

Based on set definitions
Impersonal voice
Use of accepted quantitative words

Evolving decisions
Personal voice
Accepted qualitative words
Methodological AssumptionWhat is the process of research?

Deductive process
Cause and effect
Static design – categories isolated before study
Generalizations leading to prediction, explanation, and understanding
Accurate and reliable through validity and reliability


Inductive process
Mutual simultaneous shaping of factors
Emerging design – categories indentified during research process
Patterns, theories developed for understanding
Accurate and reliable through verification

A second
approach is to rely on the assumptions primarily about the methodology
of the research. For example, Merriam (1988) mentioned six assumptions:

  1. Qualitative case
    study researchers are concerned primarily with process, rather
    than outcomes or products. They ask questions like: How do certain things
    happen? What is the ‘natural’ history of the activity or event under
    study? What happens with the passage of time? And so on. (Merriam, 1998)

  2. Qualitative case
    study researchers are interested in meaning – how people make
    sense of their lives, experiences, and their structures of the world.
    The key philosophical assumption of all types of qualitative research
    is the view that reality is constructed by individuals interacting with
    their social worlds. It is assumed that meaning is embedded in people’s
    experiences and that this meaning is mediated through the investigator’s
    own perceptions. The key concern is understanding the phenomenon of
    interest from the participants’ perspectives, not the researcher’s.

  3. The researcher
    is the primary instrument for data collection and analysis
    . Data
    are mediated through this human instrument, the researcher, rather than
    through some inanimate inventories, questionnaires or machines (like
    computers). Certain characteristics differentiate the human researcher
    from other data collection instruments: the researcher is responsive
    to the context; he or she can adapt techniques to the circumstances;
    the total context can be considered; what is known about the situation
    can be expanded through sensitivity to nonverbal aspects; the researcher
    can process data immediately, can clarify and summarize as the study
    evolves, and can explore anomalous responses. (Guba & Lincoln, 1981)

  4. Qualitative research
    involves fieldwork. The researcher physically goes to the people,
    setting, or institution (the field) to observe or record behavior in
    its natural setting. Data collection methods include: interviews, observations
    and documents.

  5. Qualitative case
    study research is descriptive in that the researcher is interested
    in process, meaning and understanding gained through words or pictures.
    Typically, the findings are in the form of themes, categories, typologies,
    concepts, tentative hypotheses, or even theory. The product of a qualitative
    case study research is richly descriptive. Words and pictures rather
    than numbers are used to convey what the researcher has learned about
    a phenomenon. There are likely to be researcher descriptions of the
    context, the players involved, and the activities of interest. In addition,
    data in the form of participants’ own words, direct citations from documents,
    excerpts of videotapes, and so on, are likely to be included to support
    the findings of the study. (Merriam, 1998)

  6. The process of
    qualitative case study research is inductive in that the researcher
    builds abstractions, concepts, hypothesis and theories from details
    rather than tests existing theories. Often qualitative case studies
    are undertaken because there is a lack of theory, or existing theory
    fails to adequately explain a phenomenon. There are thus no hypotheses
    to be deduced from theory to guide the investigation. Qualitative case
    study researchers build toward theory form observations and intuitive
    understandings gained in the field. (Merriam, 1998)
(1999) also provided differences between the two paradigms as follows:
Point of comparison
Qualitative research
Focus of researchQuality (nature, essence)Quantity (how much, how many)
Goal of investigationUnderstanding, description, discovery, hypothesis generatingPrediction, control, description, confirmation, hypothesis
Design characteristics Flexible, evolving, emergingPredetermined, structured
SettingNatural, familiarUnfamiliar, artificial
SampleSmall, nonrandom, theoreticalLarge, random, representative
Data collectionResearcher as primary instrument, interviews, observationInanimate instruments (scales, tests, surveys, questionnaires,
Mode of analysis Inductive (by researcher)Deductive (by statistical methods)
FindingsComprehensive, holistic, expansivePrecise, narrow, reductionist
Skip to Main Content

Skip to Search Box

Skip to Top Navigation Bar

Skip to Left Navigation Bar

Skip to Organizational Offices

Skip to Bottom Navigation

USDA Logo Forest Service Shield
U.S. Forest Service
Caring for the land and serving people

United States Department of Agriculture

Home > Search > Publication Information

  1. Management assumptions and program realities: a case study of non-commercial fern gathering

    Share via Email Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on Twitter

    Dislike this pub Like this pub
    Author(s): Janet E. Alm;  Dale J. Blahna

    Details for Dale J. Blahna

    Profile Link:
    [email protected]
    400 N. 34th St., Suite 201
    Seattle, WA 98105

    Featured Publications

    1. Linkages to Public Land Framework: toward embedding humans in ecosystem analyses by using “inside-out social assessment.”
    2. Visions of success and achievement in recreation-related USDA Forest Service NEPA processes
    3. Comparing manager and visitor perceptions of llama use in wilderness
    4. Comparing the Preferences of Black, Asian, Hispanic, and White Fishermen at Moraine Hills State Park, Illinois
    5. Management assumptions and program realities: a case study of non-commercial fern gathering
    6. Interdisciplinary collaboration within project-level NEPA teams in the US Forest Service
    7. Environmental stewardship footprint research: linking human agency and ecosystem health in the Puget Sound region
    8. Involving forest communities in identifying and constructing ecosystems services: millennium assessment and place specificity
    9. The use of recreation planning tools in U.S. Forest Service NEPA assessments
    10. Motivational functionalism and urban conservation stewardship: implications for volunteer involvement

    Deborah J. Chavez

    Details for Deborah J. Chavez

    Profile Link:
    [email protected]
    Pacific Southwest Research Station
    4955 Canyon Crest Dr
    Riverside, CA 92507

    Featured Publications

    Date: 2008
    Source: In: Chavez, Deborah J.; Winter, Patricia L.; Absher, James D., eds. Recreation visitor research: studies of diversity. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-210. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 87-96. Chapter 8
    Publication Series: General Technical Report (GTR)
    Station: Pacific Southwest Research Station
    PDF: View PDF  
    (461.94 KB)

    Note: This article is part of a larger document. View the larger document


    In the mid-1990s, picking bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn) fiddleheads became a popular activity on the Mountaintop (formerly Arrowhead) Ranger District (MRD) of the San Bernardino National Forest in California. Concerned that fern picking was affecting the resource and that pickers were making large profits by selling the ferns, the MRD developed a program to charge a commercially based fee and limit fern picking to designated areas. Several years after implementation, MRD staff asked scientists to evaluate the program. Biologically, bracken ferns are very resistant, and there was no evidence of overpicking on the MRD. Studies also found no evidence of commercial resale of the ferns. Rather, fern gathering was a culturally-based recreational activity pursued primarily by Korean and Japanese family groups. Most participants picked for social and outdoor experiences and used the ferns in the preparation of culturally significant traditional dishes. As a result of program rules designed for commercial picking, most participants gathered many fewer pounds of ferns than they paid for. Similarly, many of the program violations resulted from the incompatibility between the commercially based rules and the pickers recreational motivations. This case illustrates that special forest products programs and management strategies need to be based on site-specific biological and sociological factors.

    Publication Notes

    • You may send email to [email protected] to request a hard copy of this publication.
    • (Please specify exactly which publication you are requesting and your mailing address.)
    • We recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information.
    • This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain.


    Alm, Janet E.; Blahna, Dale J.; Chavez, Deborah J. 2008. Management assumptions and program realities: a case study of noncommercial fern gathering. In: Chavez, Deborah J.; Winter, Patricia L.; Absher, James D., eds. Recreation visitor research: studies of diversity. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-210. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 87-96. Chapter 8.


    Special forest products , commercial use , recreation , race , ethnicity , bracken fern , ferns , program evaluation

    Related Search

    • Supplemental treatments to aid planted Douglas-fir in dense bracken fern
    • Reforestation trials and secondary succession with three levels of overstory shade in the Grand Fir Mosaic ecosystem
    • Chemical and mineralogical conversion of Andisols following invasion by bracken fern

    XML: View XML

    Report an issue with the PDF
    Get the latest version of the Adobe Acrobat reader
Show More
Show Fewer
Jump to Top of Page