Interpretive Single Case Study — Bounded Interpretive Inquiry

The interpretive label signals an epistemological commitment: the researcher assumes that meaning is socially constructed, context-dependent, and shaped by the perspectives of those inside the case. This contrasts with a positivist or post-positivist case study, which treats the case as a source of evidence for testing pre-specified propositions. An interpretive single case study centres participant meaning-making, values thick description, foregrounds researcher reflexivity, and uses analytic strategies drawn from constructivist qualitative traditions.

A single case is sufficient when the case itself is the primary interest (Stake's intrinsic case), when the case is revelatory, extreme, or longitudinally critical, or when only one case is practically accessible. Multiple cases are preferred when the goal is cross-case comparison, theory building across contexts, or demonstrating that findings replicate across different sites. Multiple-case designs reduce the vulnerability to the 'unrepresentative case' critique but sacrifice depth for breadth.

Lincoln and Guba's (1985) criteria provide the standard framework: credibility (prolonged engagement, triangulation, member checking), transferability (thick description that enables readers to judge applicability), dependability (an audit trail of analytic decisions), and confirmability (reflexive documentation of how the researcher's perspectives were managed). Sharing analytic memos and negative cases also strengthens the account.

Yes — it is a well-established and widely accepted dissertation design in education, nursing, social work, management, and social sciences. The key requirements are a clearly bounded and justified case, rigorous multi-source data collection, transparent interpretive analysis, and a reflexive discussion of the researcher's positionality. Reviewers will expect you to address the limitations of single-case generalisability directly.

Yin's approach is primarily post-positivist: it emphasises design logic, replication rationale, rival explanations, and formal propositions. Stake's approach is explicitly interpretivist: it foregrounds the researcher's experiential and empathic understanding of the case, privileges narrative reporting, and embraces naturalistic generalisation. An interpretive single case study aligns closely with Stake's tradition, though researchers often draw on both for design decisions.