International Conference Research Methodologies

Science, Engineering and Technology

2006

Case Study as a Methodology in Architectural Research

Pardis Alizadeh
Faculty Member of Tabriz Islamic Art Univ.
Architecture Department
Pardisal@Yahoo.com

Abstract
Case study methodology have importance role in architectural research. This methodology has
developed within the social sciences. A first generation of case studies originated in
anthropology, but this came under criticism during the era of logical positivism, a period when
social science methodology became divided into two distinct types: quantitative and qualitative
research. The present second generation of case studies merge these two traditions; it is
pragmatic and inclusive. Case study methodology is characterized by a purposeful selection of
the case to study and triangulation, which is normally conducted by means of multiple-method
data collection. Generalizations are made from a particular case in the interest either of theory
or of other cases. In the field of architecture, the case may be an artifact .Understanding of an
artifact often requires knowledge, not only of its contemporary setting, but also of the historical
context of its design. Thus, case studies in architecture tend to be historical case studies. The
case may also be the design process, sometimes even the researchers own creative activity. As
a consequence it is necessary to transcend the bounds of what is conventionally considered a
way of conducting research.

Keyword: Case study, architecture, methodology

Introduction
In architectural research, the case study has become a dominant methodology. A case study is
expected to capture the complexity of a single case, and the methodology which enables this to be
done has developed within the social sciences. Such methodology is applied not only in social
science disciplines, such as psychology, sociology, anthropology and economics, but also in
practice oriented fields such as environmental studies, social work, education and management
science. In architectural research case studies are very common. The ability to act within
professional practice is based on knowledge of a repertoire of cases. These cases are based either

58

International Conference Research Methodologies Science, Engineering and Technology

on personal experiences or are model cases established within the profession. Case studies
contribute to the building of professional repertoires. A designers work is based on comparisons
between known cases from the repertoire and the actual design situation (Schn 1991).
The purpose of this paper is to capture the essence of case study methodology: firstly, by tracing
its history; secondly, by making explicit its most characteristic features; and finally, through a
discussion of its application in architectural research.

History of case study methodology

A first generation of case studies appeared around 1900, initially within the discipline of
anthropology. From early accounts of journeys, systematic investigations of other cultures in the
form of field studies emerged, with participant observation as the predominant method of data
collection. Another source of case study methodology has been descriptions of individuals within
medicine, social work and psychology, often called case work or case history. The first
generation of case studies culminated in the Chicago school of sociology, where the
anthropologists field study method was practised on contemporary society in the university
surroundings. (Platt 1992, van Maanen 1988).
After the Second World War logical positivism dominated the philosophy of science, and the
social sciences favoured positivism and quantitative methods. Surveys, statistical methods,
opinion polls, experiments and quasi-experiments were considered scientific, and qualitative
case studies were criticized for being non-scientific. During this period differing methodologies
led to a distinction within the social sciences between two cultures: positivistic and antipositivistic. Thus the social sciences were characterized by a methodological division. This
reflected the birth and development of the social sciences within the context of existing tensions
between the natural sciences and the humanities.
Around 1950 logical positivism dissolved, but within the social sciences the methodology of
the natural sciences was still emulated. During its emergence, architectural research, which was
based on the model of the social sciences, was very much dependent on positivistic methods. This
was a consequence of a fear of not being scientifically acceptable. Philosophers of science, such
as Peter Winch (1958/1994) and Georg Henrik von Wright (1971), criticized the methodological
influence of the natural sciences on the social sciences. In the late 1960s a second generation of
case study methodology began to emerge: one which bridged the gap between positivism and
hermeneutics as a philosophical foundation of the social sciences.

Most characteristic features of case study methodology

The first type of methodology within the second generation of case studies was Grounded
Theory. This methodology merged qualitative field study methods from the Chicago school of
sociology with quantitative methods of data analysis (Glaser & Strauss 1967). The result was an
inductive methodology, based on using detailed procedures to analyse data. Robert Yin
(1984/1994) took the next step.
He transferred the experimental logic into the field of naturalistic inquiry and combined it with
qualitative methods. Since then, much has been written on case study methodology. Case study
methodology has developed in the direction of eclecticism and pragmatism. Among others, this
has been advocated by Michael Quinn Patton (1990:39): Rather than believing that one must

Case Study as a Methodology in Architectural Research

59

choose to align with one paradigm or the other, I advocate a paradigm of choices. A paradigm of
choices rejects methodological orthodoxy in favour of methodological appropriateness as the
primary criterion for judging methodological quality. Case study methodology now bridges the
ethodological gap in the social sciences (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The history of case study methodology. The first generation of case studies was an isolated island
within the development of methodology in the social sciences. After the Second World War it received heavy
criticism from the logical positivists. Over the last few decades case study methodology has made a comeback:
methodology has become explicit and inclusive. (Johansson, Rolf. (2003)

Unlike the first generation of case study research, the aim of the second generation has been
to make methods explicit. Four important aspects of case study methodology are exhaustively
discussed: What is a case? How is a case for study selected? How are findings validated? And,
how are generalizations made from a single case?
What is a case? The concept of case is not well defined and remains a subject of debate. The
case may be a relatively bounded object or a process; it may be theoretical, empirical, or both.
(Ragin & Becker 1992). At a minimum, a case is a phenomenon specific to time and space.
How is a case for study selected? A case study focuses on one unit of analysis (a case), but
simultaneously takes account of the context, and so encompasses many variables and qualities. I
have labelled this strategy explicative as opposed to experimental - one unit of analysis and a
few isolated variables - and reductive - many units of analysis and a few variables. (Johansson
2002) (Figure 2). The case might be given and studied with an intrinsic interest in the case as
such. Alternatively, it might be selected purposefully or analytically, because it is, for instance,

60

International Conference Research Methodologies Science, Engineering and Technology

information-rich, critical, revelatory, unique or extreme (as opposed to a representational sample

strategy used in statistical investigations). (Stake 1995, Patton 1990).

Figure 2. Three strategies to focus empirical research by reducing the units of analysis (cases), or the number
of variables (qualities), or a combination of the two. The three strategies imply different methodologies. Case
studies are implied by an explicative strategy. (Johansson, Rolf. (2003))

How are findings validated? Case studies all have in common that they are validated or
aim at trustworthiness through triangulation. Most often data collection methods are
triangulated (many methods are combined), but in addition to that, data sources, theory or
investigators might also be triangulated. (Denzin 1978).
How are generalizations made from a single case? Generalization from a case is not
statistical, it is analytical. A generalization can be made in three different modes. The first is by
the testing of hypotheses (theory) within a case, and, as a result, the definition of the domain
within which the theory is valid. Such testing is comprised of the emulation of experimental
method in a naturalistic setting. (Yin 1994). A second mode of generalization is inductive theorygeneration-conceptualization which is based on data from within the case. The result is a micro
level theory consisting of related concepts. (Glaser & Strauss 1967). The third principle is
naturalistic generalization. In such cases generalizations are made from known cases and applied
to an actual problem situation by making appropriate comparisons. (Stake 1995). Designers
practice naturalistic generalization when they refer to their repertoire to carry out new designs. A
case may also be created (reconstructed) by a process of abductive reasoning from historical data
or clues. (Ginzburg 1989). Abductive reasoning occurs when we face some unexpected fact,
apply some principle (known or created) and conclude what may be the case. The case as a whole
is constructed or reconstructed from evidential fragments. In fact, naturalistic generalization is a

Case Study as a Methodology in Architectural Research

61

kind of abductive reasoning, which is future-oriented. (Johansson 2000b). Different modes of

generalization are often combined in a case study. (Figure 3).
Procedure
Hypotheses testing

Hypotheses
generating
Naturalistic
generalization

Synthesizing a case

A theory (Hypothesis) is
tested in a case , and
validated or falsified by
deduction
A principle (theory) is
generated by induction
from facts in the case
An actual problem
situation is compared
with known cases
A case that may be is
systhesized from facts
and a principle by
abduction

Result

Generalization

The domain of the

theory being
estabilished

From a hypothesis and

facts to theory

A micro-theory
consisting of related
concepts

From facts in the case

to theory

Ability to act by
synthesizing a new case

From cases to case

A case (re)constructed

From facts and a

principle to a case

Figure 3. Modes of generalization and reasoning in case studies.

A prerequisite of the development of case study methodology has been the focus on
contemporary events characteristic of the social sciences. When a physical artefact is the case
(instead of an individual or a social group) the gap between case study and history diminishes.
An artefact is a carrier of its history. The context of design and the context of usage may be
separated in time, but are normally equally important to the understanding of the case of an
artefact. In architectural research, when the case is a physical artefact, case studies often become
more or less historical case studies. (Johansson 2000a).

Case study in architecture

Research in architecture will transcend the bounds of what is conventionally considered a
way of evidencing research by including artefacts, such as models or exhibitions. An important
area of research is concerned with the design process. One basic kind of design research is the
study of a designers work from the first conception of an idea to a finished design. But research
in architecture will also use case study process analysis when researchers study their own
creative activity: research by design. (Gillham 2001). Retrospective reflection, as formulated, for
instance, in Collingwoods re-enactment theory (Collingwood 1939/1978, 1943/1994) and
practised by Stolterman (1991), may be added to the traditional established methods of data
collection and analysis.

References
1- Collingwood, Robin George. (1939/1978). An Autobiography. Oxford: Clarendon.
2- Collingwood, Robin George. (1943/1994). The Idea of History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

62

International Conference Research Methodologies Science, Engineering and Technology

3- Denzin, Norman K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. (2nd
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
4- Gillham, Bill. (2001). Case Study Research Methods. London, New York: Continuum.
5- Ginzburg, Carlo. (1989). Clues: Roots of an Evidential Paradigm. In Carlo Ginzburg. Clues, Myths,
and the Historical Method. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
5- Glaser, Barney, & Strauss, Anshelm. (1967). The Discovery of grounded Theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
6- Johansson, Rolf. (2000a). Ett bra fall r ett steg framt. Om fallstudier, historiska studier och historiska
fallstudier. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 13, no 12, 65-71.
7- Johansson, Rolf. (2000b). Om abduktion, intuition och syntes. Nordic Journal of Architectural
Research, 13, no 3, 13-19.
8- Johansson, Rolf. (2002). Ett explikativt angreppssstt Fallstudiemetodikens utveckling, logiska grund
och betydelse i arkitekturforskningen. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 53, no 2, 1928.
9- Johansson, Rolf. (2003). all Methodologies Reflected in Architectural Research, Journal of
Architectural Research, no 1
10- Patton, Michael Quinn. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Thousand Oaks,
London, New Delhi: Sage.
11- Platt, Jennifer. (1992). Case study in American methodological thought. Current Sociology, 40, 17
48.
12- Ragin, Charles C. & Becker, Howard S. (1992). What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social
Inquiry. Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press.
14- Schn, Donald A. (1991). The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action. Aldershot,
Hants: Arena.
15- Stake, Robert. (1995). The Art of case study Research. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.
16- Stolterman, Erik. (1991). Designarbetets dolda rationalitet. En studie av metodik och praktik inom
systemutveckling. (Doktorsavhandling vid Inst fr informationsbehandling). Ume: Ume universitet.
17- Van Maanen, John. (1988). Tales of the Field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University Press.
18- Winch, Peter. (1958/1994). Samhllsvetenskapens id och dess relation till filosofin. Stockholm:
Thales.
19- Von Wright, Georg Henrik. (1971). Explanation and Understanding. Ithaca, New York: Cornell
University Press.
20- Yin, Robert. (1984/1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, London, New
Delhi: Sage.