Justifying your case selection and articulating its significance are crucial for establishing the credibility and value of your single-case research or case study. Unlike quantitative research that seeks statistical generalizability, case studies aim for deep, nuanced understanding and often theoretical or analytical generalizability.

Here's a comprehensive guide to help you:

1. Justifying Case Selection

The core of case selection is purposeful sampling. You're not choosing a case randomly; you're selecting it because it offers the best opportunity to explore your research question and contribute to your field.

Key Principles for Justification:

• Alignment with Research Question: The chosen case must be the most suitable vehicle for addressing your specific research question. Why can this case provide the insights you seek more effectively than others?


• Theoretical Purpose: Most case studies are driven by a theoretical agenda – to build, test, refine, or challenge existing theories. Your case should be explicitly linked to this purpose.


• Empirical Purpose: Is there a gap in understanding about a particular phenomenon? Does this case represent an unexplored context, an unusual occurrence, or a specific process that needs detailed investigation?


• Methodological Suitability: Explain why a case study approach (in-depth, qualitative, boundary-spanning) is the most appropriate methodology for this particular case and research question, rather than, say, a survey or experiment.

Common Case Selection Strategies (and how to justify them):

When writing, clearly state which type of case your study represents and why that type is optimal.

• Critical Case:


• Justification: "If this holds true for this case, it will hold true for all (or most) cases," or conversely, "if it doesn't hold true here, it won't hold true anywhere." It allows for a strong logical generalization, often for theory testing.


• Example: Studying a highly successful start-up in a challenging market to understand factors of resilience. If resilience factors are present here, they are likely more broadly applicable.


• Extreme or Deviant Case:


• Justification: Focusing on an unusual, highly successful, or particularly problematic case can provide insights into the boundaries of a phenomenon or illuminate factors that are not evident in typical cases. It helps understand "why the exception?"


• Example: Investigating an organization that consistently achieves extremely high employee satisfaction in an industry known for burnout, to uncover hidden drivers.


• Unique/Revelatory Case:


• Justification: When a researcher has the opportunity to observe and analyze a phenomenon previously inaccessible to scientific investigation, or a previously unstudied context. The case itself reveals something entirely new.


• Example: Studying the first implementation of a brand-new, cutting-edge technology in a specific organizational setting, offering a unique "first look."


• Typical/Representative Case:


• Justification: While seemingly counter-intuitive for case studies, selecting a typical case can provide an in-depth understanding of the common, everyday phenomenon. The goal isn't statistical generalization, but a rich description of "how things usually are" in detail that aggregate studies cannot provide.


• Example: Studying a typical small business in a particular industry to understand day-to-day operational challenges, providing a richer picture than general surveys. (Be careful here: explain why this particular typical case is chosen – perhaps for its accessibility, clarity of processes, or willingness to engage deeply).


• Paradigm/Exemplar Case:


• Justification: The case serves as a clear, classic example of a particular concept or phenomenon. It exemplifies the core features under investigation.


• Example: Studying a well-known historical event (e.g., the Cuban Missile Crisis) as a perfect example of crisis management decision-making.


• Longitudinal/Process-Oriented Case:


• Justification: To understand how a phenomenon, intervention, or change unfolds over time. The case selection is justified by its ability to provide a temporal dimension to the analysis.


• Example: Following a single policy implementation over several years to understand its evolution, challenges, and long-term impacts.


• Disconfirming/Negative Case:


• Justification: Deliberately choosing a case that might challenge an existing theory or widely held assumption. This is powerful for refining or rejecting theories.


• Example: Studying an intervention thought to be universally effective, in a context where it failed, to understand the boundary conditions of its effectiveness.


• Convenience Case (with caveats):


• Justification: While not ideal as a primary justification, if a case is chosen due to accessibility, it must still be clearly linked to the research question and possess sufficient theoretical relevance. Acknowledge accessibility, but pivot quickly to its substantive value.


• Example: "While initially chosen due to privileged access to Company X, further analysis revealed that Company X presents a unique opportunity to study [specific phenomenon] because of [reasons tying it to research question]."

How to Structure Your Justification Section:

• Introduce the Case: Briefly describe your case (e.g., "This study focuses on Acme Corp., a medium-sized technology firm...")


• State Your Research Question: Reiterate it clearly.


• Explain the Rationale for Selection: This is the core.


• Clearly state which type of case it is (e.g., "Acme Corp. was selected as an extreme case...")


• Elaborate on why it fits this type (e.g., "...because its employee turnover rates are consistently 3x the industry average, offering a unique opportunity to investigate the deep-seated cultural factors contributing to retention issues.")


• Connect directly to your research question (e.g., "This extreme context allows for an in-depth exploration of how organizational culture impacts employee loyalty, a question that remains poorly understood in typical firms.")


• Discuss Alternative Cases (and why they were rejected): Briefly explain why other potential cases would not have been as effective. This strengthens your argument. (e.g., "While other firms in the industry experience similar challenges, none demonstrated the prolonged and pronounced characteristics seen at Acme Corp., which are essential for revealing the nuanced interplay of factors central to this study.")


• Acknowledge Limitations: Briefly mention what this case cannot do (e.g., "While offering deep insights, findings from Acme Corp. cannot be statistically generalized to all technology firms, but rather serve to build theory on organizational culture and retention.")

2. Articulating the Significance of Your Case

Justifying why you chose the case flows directly into explaining why anyone should care about your findings from it. This is about establishing the relevance and contribution of your research.

Key Areas of Significance:

• Theoretical Contribution: This is often the most important for academic case studies.


• Theory Building: Does your case help to develop new concepts, frameworks, or propositions?


• Theory Testing/Refinement: Does it provide empirical evidence that supports, challenges, or refines existing theories? Does it identify boundary conditions for a theory's applicability?


• Conceptual Clarification: Does it offer a clearer understanding of an abstract concept through concrete illustration?


• Anomalous Findings: Does it present findings that defy current theoretical explanations, thus opening new avenues for research?


• Filling a Theoretical Gap: Does your study address an area where theory is underdeveloped or absent?


• Empirical Contribution:


• New Insights into a Phenomenon: Does your case provide a richer, more detailed understanding of a phenomenon that was previously only superficially understood?


• Revealing Hidden Processes: Does it uncover previously unobserved mechanisms, dynamics, or interconnections?


• Contextual Understanding: Does it illuminate how a phenomenon manifests in a specific, unique, or understudied context?


• Descriptive Depth: Does it offer a vivid, detailed description that helps other researchers or practitioners grasp the complexity of a situation?


• Practical/Policy Contribution:


• Informing Practice: Does your study offer actionable insights for managers, practitioners, or professionals? (e.g., "Findings suggest a need for specific training interventions...")


• Guiding Policy: Does it provide evidence that can inform policy-making or suggest changes to existing policies?


• Problem Solving: Does it help diagnose a problem or propose solutions to real-world challenges?


• Raising Awareness: Does it highlight an important issue that deserves more attention?


• Methodological Contribution (Less common for single cases, but possible):


• Demonstrating a new way to apply an existing method.


• Highlighting challenges or opportunities in studying a particular type of phenomenon.

How to Structure Your Significance Section:

This usually comes after your methods section, often in the introduction (briefly) and certainly in your discussion/conclusion.

• Reiterate Main Findings/Insights: Briefly summarize the core discoveries from your case.


• Connect to Research Question: How do these findings directly answer your initial research question?


• Elaborate on Theoretical Significance:


• "This case study contributes to [specific theory] by demonstrating..."


• "Our findings challenge the prevailing assumption that [X] by illustrating how [Y] in this unique context..."


• "The detailed analysis of this case reveals a previously unrecognized mechanism: [Z], thereby expanding our understanding of [broad phenomenon]."


• Elaborate on Empirical Significance:


• "The in-depth exploration of Acme Corp. offers the first detailed account of [specific phenomenon] in [this particular context], enriching our empirical understanding..."


• "It provides granular insights into the day-to-day challenges of [activity], which has largely been studied through aggregate data."


• Elaborate on Practical/Policy Significance (if applicable):


• "Practitioners can learn from Acme Corp.'s approach to [problem] by considering..."


• "This study suggests that policymakers should re-evaluate [policy] in light of [finding]."


• Acknowledge Limitations & Future Research: What are the boundaries of your findings? What new questions does your study raise for future research, perhaps in other cases or contexts? This reinforces that your single case is a building block, not the final word.

In essence, for both justification and significance, you need to be explicit and compelling about the "why":

• **Why this case?** (Justification)


• Why does it matter? (Significance)