Critical Single Case Study — Critical Single Case Study Research
Also known as: critical case study, critical-theory case study, single critical case, CSCS
A critical single case study is a qualitative research design that investigates one bounded, strategically selected case through a critical-theory lens, aiming not only to understand the case in depth but also to expose underlying power relations, structural inequalities, or ideological conditions that shape the phenomenon. It combines the analytic depth of single-case inquiry with the emancipatory agenda of critical social science.
Key highlights
- Achieves exceptional depth within a single context, revealing complexity that surveys and comparative designs miss.
- Explicitly connects micro-level events to macro-level power structures, producing actionable critical insight.
- Triangulation across multiple data sources within the same case strengthens trustworthiness despite the single-case boundary.
- Gives voice to marginalised perspectives that are typically excluded from mainstream accounts of a phenomenon.
- Flyvbjerg's critical case logic means one well-chosen case can carry significant logical generalisability.
Intuition
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
How it works
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
When to use it
Use a critical single case study when the research goal is to understand and critique how power, ideology, or structural inequality operates within a specific, bounded context, and when one strategically chosen case can illuminate mechanisms with broader relevance. It is appropriate in education research, health equity, organisational studies, and social policy analysis. It is well-suited when a phenomenon is politically sensitive, poorly documented from the perspective of marginalised groups, or when prior research has described outcomes without explaining their structural causes. Do not use this design when the goal is descriptive generalisation across multiple sites (use multiple case study instead), when a critical framework is not theoretically justified by the research problem, or when the researcher lacks access to diverse stakeholders within the case — thin data from a single source undermines both the empirical and the critical claims.
Strengths & limitations
- Achieves exceptional depth within a single context, revealing complexity that surveys and comparative designs miss.
- Explicitly connects micro-level events to macro-level power structures, producing actionable critical insight.
- Triangulation across multiple data sources within the same case strengthens trustworthiness despite the single-case boundary.
- Gives voice to marginalised perspectives that are typically excluded from mainstream accounts of a phenomenon.
- Flyvbjerg's critical case logic means one well-chosen case can carry significant logical generalisability.
- Findings are context-specific; statistical or sample-based generalisation to a population is not possible.
- The critical framework introduces an explicit value stance, which some audiences read as advocacy rather than research.
- A single case is vulnerable to atypicality: if the selected case is unusual in unrecognised ways, the critical argument may not transfer.
- Gaining access to sensitive institutional data and to marginalised participants requires sustained trust-building and ethical negotiation.
- The design is time- and resource-intensive; full data triangulation demands extended fieldwork.
Common pitfalls
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Applications
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Frequently asked
What makes a case 'critical' in this design?
A critical case is strategically significant: it is chosen because it provides a particularly clear window onto the mechanisms the researcher wants to examine. Flyvbjerg argues that if the phenomenon operates in this case, we have reason to believe it operates more broadly — or conversely, if it fails here, it likely fails everywhere. The 'critical' label also reflects the critical-theory orientation: the goal is to expose and challenge power, not merely describe events.
How does a critical single case study differ from an interpretive single case study?
Both involve deep, in-context inquiry into one case. The key difference is the analytic agenda. An interpretive single case study seeks to understand meaning from participants' perspectives, remaining relatively close to the emic view. A critical single case study layers a critical-theory framework on top of that understanding to interrogate structural power, ideology, and inequality — it asks not only 'what does this mean?' but 'who benefits and who is harmed, and why?'
Can I generalise from a single case?
Not statistically. However, Yin distinguishes analytic generalisation — where findings are generalised to a theory, not to a population — and Flyvbjerg argues that a strategically chosen critical case supports logical inference: if the mechanism holds in this extreme or paradigmatic instance, it provides evidence that it operates more broadly. The researcher must be explicit about what kind of transferability is being claimed.
How do I ensure rigour in a critical single case study?
Rigour rests on four practices: triangulation (multiple data sources), transparent reflexivity (disclosing positionality and theoretical commitments), member checking or respondent validation with key informants, and an explicit audit trail of analytic decisions. Engaging seriously with disconfirming evidence — data that complicate the critical argument — is also essential to credibility.
Is a critical framework mandatory, or can I add it after data collection?
A critical framework should be explicitly adopted and justified before data collection, because it shapes which questions are asked, which participants are prioritised, and which documents are collected. Adding a critical frame retrospectively as an interpretive overlay is methodologically weak and risks being superficial — the critical lens needs to permeate design, not just analysis.
Sources
- 1.Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.
- 2.Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th ed.). Sage.ISBN 978-1506336169
You have read it. What now?
Cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Critical single case study. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/qualitative/critical-single-case-study