Multiple Case-Based Metaphor Analysis
Also known as: cross-case metaphor analysis, comparative metaphor analysis, multi-case metaphor study, MCBMA
Multiple case-based metaphor analysis is a qualitative comparative method that systematically identifies and interprets metaphorical language across two or more bounded cases — such as schools, organisations, or participant groups — to reveal how people in different contexts conceptualise a shared phenomenon. It integrates Lakoff and Johnson's conceptual metaphor theory with Yin's multiple-case logic, enabling both within-case depth and cross-case breadth.
Read the full method
Sign in with a free account to read this section.
Method map
The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.
When to use it
Use multiple case-based metaphor analysis when your research question concerns how people in different but comparable contexts conceptualise a shared phenomenon through language, and when you need both within-context depth and cross-context comparison. It is suited to education, organisational studies, health communication, and policy research. All cases must provide rich textual or spoken data. The method is not appropriate when you have only one case (use single-case metaphor analysis), when data are numeric, or when the goal is to measure metaphor frequency statistically across a large corpus (corpus linguistics methods are more appropriate). It requires skill in both case-study design and metaphor identification procedures and is demanding in time and researcher capacity.
Strengths & limitations
- Combines interpretive depth within each case with the comparative rigour of multiple-case logic, producing richer claims than either approach alone.
- Grounded in established conceptual metaphor theory (Lakoff & Johnson) and replication logic (Yin), giving the design theoretical credibility.
- Sensitive to context: divergent cross-case patterns highlight how local factors shape conceptualisation.
- Applicable across disciplines — education, management, health communication, policy studies — wherever language data are available.
- Replication logic allows the analyst to build transferable theoretical propositions rather than purely descriptive local accounts.
- Time-intensive: independent within-case analysis followed by systematic cross-case comparison multiplies the analytical workload.
- Findings are context-rich but not statistically generalizable; transferability depends on theoretical rather than statistical replication.
- Inter-rater reliability in metaphor identification can be low unless the coding procedure (e.g., MIPVU) is applied rigorously and reliability checks are conducted.
- Case selection bias is a real risk: if cases are not chosen on theoretically coherent grounds, cross-case comparisons may be misleading.
- The method requires competence in two methodological traditions (case-study design and metaphor analysis) that are rarely taught together.
Frequently asked
How is this different from a single-case metaphor analysis?
Single-case metaphor analysis produces a rich account of how one bounded group or context conceptualises a phenomenon. Multiple case-based metaphor analysis adds cross-case comparison, which allows you to ask whether a metaphorical framing is locally specific or more widely shared, and to identify contextual factors that explain variation. The additional cases multiply the analytical workload but substantially increase the theoretical reach of the findings.
How many cases do I need?
Yin's replication logic suggests that two to three cases is the minimum to begin detecting convergent or divergent patterns; four to six cases is more robust. The upper limit is constrained by time and resources rather than methodology. Each case must be analysed fully before the cross-case comparison, so adding cases has a linear cost in analytical effort.
Which metaphor identification procedure should I use?
The Pragglejaz Group's MIP or Steen et al.'s MIPVU are the most widely accepted systematic procedures, well-suited to interview and document data. Theory-driven approaches (identifying expressions that instantiate pre-specified Lakoff-Johnson source domains) are also used, particularly when the research question is focused on specific conceptual metaphors. Whichever procedure is chosen, it must be applied consistently across all cases and documented in sufficient detail for replication.
Can I use software for the metaphor coding?
ATLAS.ti, NVivo, or MaxQDA can manage the coding and retrieval of metaphorical expressions across case corpora. However, automated tools are not reliable for identifying conceptual metaphors; the intellectual work of metaphor identification and interpretation requires human judgment. Software is valuable for organising large volumes of coded data and producing the cross-case matrices that support comparative analysis.
How do I establish trustworthiness?
Key strategies include: inter-rater reliability checks on the metaphor identification phase (have a second analyst independently code a subset and calculate agreement); member-checking within at least one case; maintaining an audit trail of coding decisions and interpretive memos; and transparent case-selection rationale that makes the replication logic explicit. Reporting divergent as well as convergent findings also strengthens credibility.
Sources
- Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press. ISBN: 978-0226468013
- Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications. ISBN: 978-1452242569
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Multiple Case-Based Metaphor Analysis. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/qualitative/multiple-case-based-metaphor-analysis
Which method?
Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.
- Case StudyQualitative↔ compare
- Content AnalysisQualitative↔ compare
- Discourse AnalysisQualitative Research↔ compare
- Metaphor AnalysisQualitative↔ compare
- Narrative AnalysisQualitative↔ compare
- Thematic AnalysisQualitative Research↔ compare