Interpretive Multiple Case Study

Both compare across sites using qualitative, interpretivist methods, but they differ in scope and emphasis. Ethnography requires prolonged immersion in each field setting and foregrounds cultural processes; the researcher typically becomes part of the community studied. Interpretive multiple case study emphasizes the bounded unit of analysis (the case), may draw on a wider range of data sources (documents, archives, interviews) without requiring long-term fieldwork, and is more explicitly structured around replication or comparison logic at the design level.

There is no fixed minimum, but two to four cases is a common range for in-depth interpretive work. Yin's replication logic suggests that more cases produce more robust analytic conclusions, but each additional case increases the resource burden. The number should be determined by your research question, the diversity of contexts you need to sample, and the depth of analysis you can sustain. More than six to eight cases in a single study tends to push the design toward survey logic rather than interpretive depth.

Yes. Thematic analysis — particularly the reflexive thematic analysis framework developed by Braun and Clarke — is compatible with an interpretivist multiple case study design. It can be applied within each case to develop case-specific themes, and then themes can be compared across cases. The key is to carry out within-case analysis before cross-case synthesis, and to maintain reflexivity about how the comparison is constructed.

Transferability is the interpretivist alternative to statistical generalizability. Rather than claiming that findings apply to a defined population, you provide sufficiently thick description of each case and its context so that readers can judge whether findings are relevant to other situations they know. Purposive case selection that captures meaningful variation strengthens transferability claims. The researcher describes, not prescribes, the conditions under which findings may travel.

Yes, it is a well-established dissertation design, especially in education, health sciences, and organizational studies. Reviewers will expect a clear rationale for case selection, explicit alignment between the interpretivist paradigm and analytic approach, documented within-case analysis before cross-case work, and a reflexivity statement. Two to three cases with deep analysis is usually preferable to five cases treated superficially.