Multiple Case-Based Oral History — Cross-Case Testimonial Research
Multiple Case-Based Oral History Research · Also known as: multi-case oral history, comparative oral history, cross-case oral history, multi-site oral history
Multiple case-based oral history is a qualitative research design that embeds oral history interviews within a multiple-case framework. Rather than collecting testimonies from a single community or site, the researcher deliberately selects two or more distinct cases — communities, cohorts, organisations, or geographic sites — gathers in-depth oral testimonies within each, and then conducts systematic cross-case comparison to identify both shared and divergent historical experiences.
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 oral history when the research question concerns a historical experience or social phenomenon that likely played out differently across distinct communities, cohorts, or sites, and when the goal is both in-depth testimonial understanding and cross-case comparison. It is particularly apt for comparative social history, migration studies, post-conflict memory research, and community history projects that span multiple locations. Do not use it when a single community's experience is the sole focus (simple oral history suffices), when the research lacks a credible basis for case comparison, or when resources do not permit adequate data collection across multiple sites — under-resourced multi-case designs risk shallow within-case coverage that undermines the validity of cross-case claims.
Strengths & limitations
- Captures both depth (rich individual testimonies) and breadth (cross-case patterns) within one study.
- The multiple-case structure strengthens analytic rigour and the credibility of comparative claims.
- Centres marginalized voices and lived memory while maintaining systematic design discipline.
- Flexible enough to incorporate archival, photographic, and material culture evidence alongside oral testimonies.
- Replication logic makes case selection transparent and defensible to reviewers.
- Produces nuanced findings about how historical context shapes variation in human experience.
- Resource-intensive: each case requires substantial time for interview recruitment, recording, transcription, and analysis.
- Comparability is difficult when cases differ dramatically in context, making cross-case synthesis interpretively complex.
- Findings are context-bound and not statistically generalizable; transferability depends on detailed case description.
- Managing large volumes of transcript data across multiple cases demands strong organisational systems.
- Access to narrators in multiple sites may be constrained by geography, gatekeeping, or community sensitivity.
Frequently asked
How many cases and how many narrators per case are needed?
There is no fixed rule, but the multiple-case logic typically requires at least two cases to enable comparison; three or more cases strengthen the replication rationale. Within each case, enough narrators should be interviewed to reach sufficient diversity of perspective — in practice this often means at least four to eight narrators per case, though the criterion is thematic sufficiency rather than a preset number.
How does this differ from comparative oral history?
The terms overlap considerably. 'Comparative oral history' emphasises the comparison of testimonies across groups or time periods. 'Multiple case-based oral history' more explicitly borrows the formal case study architecture — with a defined unit of analysis per case, within-case analysis preceding cross-case synthesis, and a stated replication logic for case selection — giving the design additional structural rigour.
What role do archival sources play alongside oral testimonies?
Archival materials (documents, photographs, newspapers, records) are used as contextual and corroborating evidence within each case and to triangulate between what narrators report and what documentary evidence shows. They enrich the case reports but do not replace the primacy of the oral testimonies, which remain the methodological core of the approach.
How should disagreements between narrators or between oral and archival evidence be handled?
Discrepancies are data, not errors. Oral history methodology treats contradictions between accounts — or between testimony and archival records — as revealing different social positions, memories, and meaning-making processes. These tensions should be reported and interpreted rather than resolved by declaring one source 'correct.'
Is member checking required in this design?
Member checking (sharing findings or transcripts with narrators for verification) is a widely recommended trustworthiness strategy in oral history research and is ethically good practice. It is especially important in community-based or sensitive research. However, it should be planned and budgeted for each case site, as it adds time and logistical complexity across multiple locations.
Sources
- Portelli, A. (1997). The Battle of Valle Giulia: Oral History and the Art of Dialogue. University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN: 978-0299153045
- Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (5th ed.). Sage. ISBN: 978-1452242569
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Multiple Case-Based Oral History Research. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/qualitative/multiple-case-based-oral-history
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.
- Comparative Oral historyQualitative↔ compare
- Life History ResearchQualitative↔ compare
- Longitudinal Oral HistoryQualitative↔ compare
- Multiple-Case StudyQualitative↔ compare
- Narrative InquiryQualitative Research↔ compare
- Oral HistoryQualitative↔ compare