similarities between case study and action research

Action Research vs. Case Study

What's the difference.

Action research and case study are both research methodologies used in social sciences to investigate and understand complex phenomena. However, they differ in their approach and purpose. Action research is a collaborative and participatory approach that involves researchers and practitioners working together to identify and solve practical problems in real-world settings. It aims to bring about positive change and improvement in the context being studied. On the other hand, case study is an in-depth and detailed examination of a particular individual, group, or situation. It focuses on understanding the unique characteristics and dynamics of the case being studied and often involves extensive data collection and analysis. While action research emphasizes practical application and problem-solving, case study emphasizes detailed exploration and understanding of a specific case.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Action research and case study are two widely used research methodologies in various fields. While both approaches aim to gain insights and understanding, they differ in their focus, design, and implementation. This article will explore the attributes of action research and case study, highlighting their similarities and differences.

Action Research

Action research is a participatory approach that involves collaboration between researchers and practitioners to address real-world problems. It emphasizes the active involvement of stakeholders in the research process, aiming to bring about practical change and improvement. Action research typically follows a cyclical process, consisting of planning, action, observation, and reflection.

One of the key attributes of action research is its focus on generating knowledge that is directly applicable to the context in which it is conducted. It aims to bridge the gap between theory and practice by actively involving practitioners in the research process. This participatory nature allows for a deeper understanding of the complexities and nuances of the problem being investigated.

Action research often involves multiple iterations, with each cycle building upon the insights gained from the previous one. This iterative approach allows for continuous learning and adaptation, enabling researchers to refine their interventions and strategies based on the feedback received. It also promotes a sense of ownership and empowerment among the participants, as they actively contribute to the research process.

Furthermore, action research is characterized by its emphasis on collaboration and co-learning. It encourages the exchange of ideas and knowledge between researchers and practitioners, fostering a sense of shared responsibility and collective action. This collaborative approach not only enhances the quality of the research but also increases the likelihood of successful implementation of the findings.

In summary, action research is a participatory and iterative approach that aims to generate practical knowledge through collaboration between researchers and practitioners. It focuses on addressing real-world problems and promoting positive change within specific contexts.

Case study, on the other hand, is an in-depth investigation of a particular phenomenon, event, or individual. It involves the detailed examination of a specific case or cases to gain a comprehensive understanding of the subject under study. Case studies can be conducted using various research methods, such as interviews, observations, and document analysis.

One of the key attributes of case study research is its ability to provide rich and detailed insights into complex phenomena. By focusing on a specific case, researchers can delve deep into the intricacies and unique aspects of the subject, uncovering valuable information that may not be easily captured through other research methods.

Case studies are often used to explore and understand real-life situations in their natural settings. They allow researchers to examine the context and dynamics surrounding the case, providing a holistic view of the phenomenon under investigation. This contextual understanding is crucial for gaining a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the subject.

Furthermore, case studies are particularly useful when the boundaries between the phenomenon and its context are not clearly defined. They allow for the exploration of complex and multifaceted issues, enabling researchers to capture the interplay of various factors and variables. This holistic approach enhances the validity and reliability of the findings.

Moreover, case studies can be exploratory, descriptive, or explanatory in nature, depending on the research questions and objectives. They can be used to generate hypotheses, provide detailed descriptions, or test theoretical frameworks. This versatility makes case study research applicable in various fields, including psychology, sociology, business, and education.

In summary, case study research is an in-depth investigation of a specific phenomenon, providing rich and detailed insights into complex situations. It focuses on understanding the context and dynamics surrounding the case, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of multifaceted issues.

Similarities

While action research and case study differ in their focus and design, they also share some common attributes. Both approaches aim to gain insights and understanding, albeit through different means. They both involve the collection and analysis of data to inform decision-making and improve practice.

Furthermore, both action research and case study can be conducted in naturalistic settings, allowing for the examination of real-life situations. They both emphasize the importance of context and seek to understand the complexities and nuances of the phenomena under investigation.

Moreover, both methodologies can involve multiple data collection methods, such as interviews, observations, and document analysis. They both require careful planning and design to ensure the validity and reliability of the findings.

Additionally, both action research and case study can contribute to theory development. While action research focuses on generating practical knowledge, it can also inform and contribute to theoretical frameworks. Similarly, case studies can provide empirical evidence that can be used to refine and expand existing theories.

In summary, action research and case study share common attributes, including their aim to gain insights and understanding, their focus on real-life situations, their emphasis on context, their use of multiple data collection methods, and their potential contribution to theory development.

Action research and case study are two distinct research methodologies that offer unique approaches to gaining insights and understanding. Action research emphasizes collaboration, participation, and practical change, while case study focuses on in-depth investigation and contextual understanding. Despite their differences, both approaches contribute to knowledge generation and have the potential to inform theory and practice. Researchers should carefully consider the nature of their research questions and objectives to determine which approach is most suitable for their study.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

Running head: Comparative Similarities and Differences

Comparative Similarities and Differences between Action Research, Participative Research, and Participatory Action Research

Critical inquiry group 2: john bell, gail cheney, cindy hoots, elaine kohrman, jesse schubert, lisa stidham, scott traynor, critical inquiry - summer '04 – boga antioch university seattle.

            Research paradigms or perspectives have developed their own cultures of inquiry that describe different research processes used to observe, describe, and understand phenomena. Action, participative, and participatory action research are relatively new types of social research methods which coincide with the move from the Newtonian world to an era when quantum theory has deeply challenged the Cartesian-based philosophy in science. The rise of a post mechanistic view within the scientific disciplines, one where the observer affects and is affected by the observed, has signified the transition from the industrial age to the age of cybernetic theory and systems thinking. These three types of research are a part of a continuum of action-oriented research processes that combine inquiry with creating direct social change and is not limited to just explanation of information or data (Boga, 2004). Each reflects a different level of commitment and influence of those being studied on and in the research process. Each also has a different purpose. The following briefly describes each research process and explores the similarities and difference between them based on the goals of the research model, the frameworks of the research including any assumptions that are made at the base level, and the level of commitment, involvement and influence of participants.

Action Research

            Action research (AR) is a paradigm of inquiry where the researcher’s primary purpose is to improve the capacity and subsequent practices of the researcher rather than to produce theoretical knowledge (Elliott, 1991). Improving practice means that the quality of the outcome of the process and products together are enhanced. A defining characteristic of AR is that the researcher initiates change based on a feeling that something needs to change to create a better human situation. The researcher provides direction toward realization and transformation of values through the process. Ends are not defined as specific goals or objectives before hand.

            The researcher may act as an individual or with a team of colleagues as the facilitator of clients. The researcher improves skills and co-learns with the clients during the process. The researcher leads the process of identifying the problem, drawing facts and opinions from the clients, and leads the group to identify gaps in understanding. There is a unified conception, but there is not a rigid division of specialized tasks or roles. The researcher and the group identify actions to take and jointly analyze results, reflect on these actions and results, and propose new courses of action. The researcher and the clients act together to create or actualize satisfying results for change. The researcher leads the group through identifying the course of actions for diffusion, but does not necessarily engage in these actions. (Boga, 2004).

            This continuing process of reflection on the part of the researcher and clients develops the researcher’s capacity to discern the right course of action and to make ethical judgments in future situations involving complex, human relationships. This resulting practical wisdom is grounded in the researcher’s experience in real cases. A wholistic appreciation of the situation to inform the narrative of the case at hand is greater than any analytical or theoretical contributions.

            Several disparate processes are unified such as the development of the individual researcher, the design of the process, and the action-reflection cycle for both the researcher as an individual and with the clients. Although this method is primarily researcher led, collaborative reflection is imperative to encompass the experience and perceptions of the clients to make modifications to other change efforts based on shared feedback from collaborative members of the group (Elliott, 1991).

Participative Research

            Participative research (PR) is a method where the primary goal is to create an environment and process where context-bound knowledge emerges to develop ‘local theory’ that is understandable and actionable. PR is initiated by the organization of interest. The researcher and participants collaborate actively in a loosely defined group process to study and change their social reality. (Whyte, 1989)

            All members of the organization can participate. Participants must have the will and resources to participate and take on active roles and directly influence defining the problem, choose the methods used to gather the data, analyze the data, prepare the findings, and create action. (Boga, 2004) (Elden, 1981, 258). The wholistic process is group led and self-organized, and adapts to changes as needed. Results are jointly prepared, and reported to those affected. The group decides when the group is finished.

            Participants treat each other as colleagues. Through the give and take of a dialogic process, the researcher and participants learn together. The researcher’s role as one of many ‘co-learners’ in not as an expert, but as a ‘co-producer of learning.’ The researcher is dependent on where and how the data comes, has less control over the research design process itself, and has to be flexible to the perspectives and definitions of the participants. The researcher is not merely a bystander but needs to contribute toward the creation and discovery of a process that can stand on its own. A participative researcher needs to develop a context-sensitive framework, be flexible to changes in the framework based on the local knowledge from participants in their own terms, and solve problems. The result of this type of collaboration is very context-oriented to create new shared understandings. (Reason & Rowan, 1981).

            As Sohng (1995) comments, participatory research is a collaborative and empowering process because it (a) brings isolated people together around common needs and problems; (b) validates their experiences as the foundation for understanding and critical reflection; (c) presents the knowledge and experiences of the researchers as additional resources upon which to critically reflect; and (d) contextualises what might have previously felt like personal, individual problems or weaknesses. The primary strength of an action-oriented or participatory approach to research is therefore not about description but about trying things out. It is a research approach that sees its function as one of giving us different ways of relating to natural and social environments. Researchers need to be aware of how members of a group perceive and speak about their lives. This means they must endeavour to find out everything that can be found out about the community being researched. Ideally, the researcher already lives in the community, partakes in its affairs and has an ongoing relationship with the community.

Participatory Action Research

            Participatory action research (PAR) combines both the goals of improved capacity and practice of researchers, as in AR, and of achieving practical objectives and changing social reality, as in PR, through group participation. Those affected by a problem participate in planning, carrying out, analyzing and applying the results of the research. The growth and development of the participants are also an important part of the desired outcome. This method is initiated by the organization of interest and engages researchers that share control of the social process design with participants in the organization.

            The research approach is jointly designed through discussions between professional researchers and active participation by some members of the organization. PAR acknowledges that people affected by a problem are in the best position to understand and suggest solutions. Local and experiential knowledge are valued. Participants carry out the data collection and analyze the results. The researcher cannot have tight control or an agenda in terms of research topic or design, but do need to be in a situation where the problem is relevant and important to participants, and uses credible methods.

            Specifically when situations are complex with no clear line of inquiry to follow, PAR can contribute to advancing theory and knowledge along with achieving practical results. As a participant-centered approach, PAR is grounded in first-hand knowledge and participation by the participants affected. This enables researchers to gain relevant knowledge during the process which encourages creative surprises. This leads to new understandings by integrating ideas across disciplines that are typically isolated from each other to solve problems. These advances can contribute to major organizational changes along with advancing theoretical understandings across multiple disciplines.

Similarities between Methods

            The primary similarities in the three methods are active participation, open-ended objectives, and high levels of commitment from the researcher and the participants to the research problem and active learning.

            The first similarity between these three methods of research is that individuals/employees and not only researchers/leadership from an organization collaboratively design and actively participate in the research process. In AR, although the researchers are studying themselves in the context of a working with an organization, it can also be a collaborative effort when the whole group or organization is being supported by an action research process. PR requires the input and involvement of employees, including leadership, in designing the process with researchers as a group through implementing the results. PAR involves those most affected by a problem and engages them in planning, carrying out, and applying the results of the research.

            The second similarity in that each of these methods is that the end objectives are not directly specified in the beginning and the process results in solving real problems in organizations. AR is geared toward creating a more capable individual so that person is equipped to deal with the complexity of today’s work issues. PR allows employees to influence and create solutions to a business problem. PAR creates new knowledge through the process of solving real business or organizational problems while also improving the capacity of individuals in the organization.

            Third, these research models are similar in the high level of commitment and involvement required from the organization, the employees, and the researcher about the importance of the problem and to the learning that results. The organization is central to the success of the research because participants are empowered to change their reality in all three methods. The researcher guides the process to varying degrees in each method, but in all cases contributes to framing a process that is wholistic, flexible, and enhances shared learning. Isolated people, groups, disciplines and disparate processes are unified through dialogue. The result is context-oriented new understandings about individuals and the organization as a whole.

Differences between Methods

            The differences between the three types of research lie in the methods used to reach the goal of problem solving but are also primarily in the specific goal of each type of research. As Elden points out:

The cutting edge difference is the immediate goal of the research. Where the goal is to develop change capacity so that workers can solve their own problems and keep solving them (self-maintained learning.) the general knowledge research design seems to be of limited utility. (1981, 259)

            Action research focuses on the idea that improving the process improves the organization. Elliot explains:

The fundamental aim of action research is to improve practice rather than to produce knowledge. The production and utilization of knowledge is subordinate to, and conditioned by, this fundamental aim. (Elliott, 1991)

AR requires the most personal commitment and involvement of these three research methods. In effect, this method requires ongoing practice and growth and is therefore a long-term commitment.

Participative research utilizes the tacit knowledge and experience of employees and leadership in the process, requires group level commitment as well as researcher commitment for the term of the project while the team addresses and solves a relevant problem. In participative research, the long-term skills of the participants to “solve their own problems and keep solving them” (Elden, 1981, 259) is an outcome that extends beyond the research project itself. The focus in participative research is on the inclusion of the participants and their organizations within the process and the practical outcome, rather removing the process from its context. The researcher is not a facilitator of the process as in action research, but a ‘co-producer of learning.’ As Elden makes clear:

Research is participatory when those directly affected by it influence each of these four [problem definition, methods choice, data analysis & use of findings] decisions and help carry them out. (1981, 258)

            In contrast, PAR requires both researchers in their own group, organizational members in their own group and both groups collaboratively to commit to the research process for both a scientific goal of furthering the research method and a tangible problem solving goal such as whether or not to close a manufacturing plant. PAR has implications for the participants as participant within their larger environment. The participants and researchers are processing significant theoretical issues together.

We can rekindle the intellectual excitement in our field if we are willing to leave the mainstream to involve ourselves with practitioners and struggle with them to solve important practical problems – which also have important theoretical implications (Whyte, 1989)

PAR relies on reflective practice of the researchers in action and unlike action research does not wait to apply new understandings to the next situation, but incorporates them into the ongoing process. This reflective practice transforms views of structural problems and their values about the systems under study in the process and leads to more creative ‘surprises’ and solutions. The result of participatory action research is the opportunity for researchers and participants to link enhanced capacity and wisdom from action research with the ‘local theory’ from group participants in participative research to be agents of major social changes at the organizational level.

            In comparing basic, applied and participative research, Elden makes the point that his examination is not to exclude any specific paradigm, but to highlight the relative utility of each for specific purposes. Elden states,

No one of these types, of course, is intrinsically right or wrong. The question is useful for what? Regardless of what one is aiming at, researcher role must be consistent with the research goal. (1981, 261)

            T he three types of research discussed are a part of a continuum of naturalistic, post-positivist, systemic research methodology. All three have frameworks for the research method used but allow for modification as new observations and conclusions are made. Knowledge regarding a particular problem is best determined by groups of people affected. By arriving at a consensus and using qualitative methods of research rather than drawing conclusions purely through observation, measurement and quantitative analysis as is done in rationalistic research greater creativity and problem solving can emerge. Appendix I – Types of Research

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). The landscape of qualitative research : theories and issues . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change . Milton Keynes England ; Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Elden, M., Reason, P., & Rowan, J. (1981). Human inquiry : a sourcebook of new paradigm research . Chichester Eng. ; New York: J. Wiley.

Sohng, Sung Sil Lee. (1995). Participatory Action Research and Community Organizing. Seattle, WA.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Wadsworth, Y. (1998). What is Participatory Action Research? < http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ari/p-ywadsworth98.html>.

Whyte, W. F. (1989). Advancing Scientific Knowledge Through Participatory Action Research. Sociological Forum, 4 (3) 367-85.

• Software Engineering Tutorial
• Software Development Life Cycle
• Waterfall Model
• Software Requirements
• Software Measurement and Metrics
• Software Design Process
• System configuration management
• Software Maintenance
• Software Development Tutorial
• Software Testing Tutorial
• Product Management Tutorial
• Project Management Tutorial
• Agile Methodology
• Selenium Basics

Difference between Case Study and Action research

1. Action Research : Action Research is a type of qualitative research. As the name suggests it is more action oriented in order to solve an immediate problem. Action research helps the researcher to improvise its current practices and is applied for researching into issues. It aims to learn through action leading to personal or professional development means focuses on improving and/or refining actions. This type research generally used in field of education to bridge the gap between educational theory and professional practice by improvising their current practices. This helps in observing the problem and identifying the cause and then addressing the issue so mainly it is more focused on immediate addressing to practical problems and in generating knowledge to produce change.

2. Case Study : Case study research refers to an in-depth examination of a particular event or individual or a group of individuals. It is more of a qualitative method of research where it understand complex issues by deeply observing and analyzing the event or situation by collecting and reporting the data related to the event or situation. Case study research is more towards description rather than immediate cause and effect finding. Case study is categorized into three ways i.e., exploratory, explanatory and descriptive based on research method. These studies involve both quantitative and qualitative data. This type of research can be used to address community-based problems like illiteracy, unemployment, poverty, and drug addiction.

Difference between Case study and Action Research :

Similar Reads

• Difference between Case Study and Action research 1. Action Research : Action Research is a type of qualitative research. As the name suggests it is more action oriented in order to solve an immediate problem. Action research helps the researcher to improvise its current practices and is applied for researching into issues. It aims to learn through 3 min read
• Difference between Test Case and Test Script In the field of software testing, two terms often emerge: Test Case and Test Script are two synonyms used interchangeably in test throughout the project. Both are essential in proving the integrity of a software application while testing does involve the same function as verification but they differ 6 min read
• Difference between Use Case and Test Case Software testing is a process of examining whether the actual product matches the expected requirements and ensures that the software product is bug-free. The purpose of software testing is to identify bugs, errors, or missing requirements in contrast to the actual requirements. In the software test 4 min read
• Difference Between PERT and CPM Project Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) and Critical Path Method (CPM) are very important analytical techniques of Project Management for planning and controlling a project. PERT and CRM are helpful tools for managing tasks that every project manager should implement. Understanding the differ 5 min read
• Difference between ERP and IWMS 1. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) : Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), as name suggests, is a software tool that helps one to manage resources within organization and makes it more effective. 2. Integrated Workplace Management System (IWMS) : Integrated Workplace Management System (IWMS), as na 2 min read
• Difference between Agile and Scrum Testing Agile Testing: Agile testing is a type of software testing that is performed alongside the software development. It is the part of Agile Software Development in which the development and the testing process goes side by side. When in software development life cycle development and the testing goes p 2 min read
• Difference between SFA and CRM 1. Sales-Force Automation (SFA) : Sales-Force Automation technique helps to keep a track of sales person performance, as they plays major role in driving sales and contact information of probable customers and hence affecting revenues of business. This was reason that SFA came into existence for que 2 min read
• Difference between Agile and SDLC In software development, Agile and SDLC (Software Development Life Cycle) are two distinct methodologies. Agile emphasizes iterative development, rapid feedback, and flexibility to adapt to changing requirements, ideal for small-scale projects. SDLC, follows a systematic approach with sequential sta 4 min read
• Difference between BRD and SRS The role of formulating a document is to understand fundamentals that will be compelled to develop robust software. Type of record expectation depends upon business type, their criteria, how company processes, and what kind of software is to be developed. Let us understand common documents which are 3 min read
• Difference between Data Science and Operations Research 1. Data Science : It’s a set of methodologies of taking thousands of forms of data that are available to us today and using them to draw meaningful conclusions. Data is being collected all around us, every like, click, email, credit card swipe, or tweet is a new piece of data that can better describ 3 min read
• Difference between Product and Process Product: In the context of software engineering, Product includes any software manufactured based on the customer's request. This can be a problem solving software or computer based system. It can also be said that this is the result of a project. Process: Process is a set of sequence steps that hav 2 min read
• Difference between Survey and Experiment 1. Survey : Survey refers to the way of gathering information regarding a variable under study from all or a specified number of respondents of the universe. Surveys are carried out by maintaining a structured form of data collection, through interview, questionnaire, case study etc. In surveys prep 3 min read
• Difference Between Adaptation and Mitigation Difference Between Adaptation and Mitigation: Adaptation and mitigation are two methods that can be used to fix various problems in the world like climate change, pollution, water treatment, and many more. These both occur in many things like humans developing new climate change strategies, animals 3 min read
• Difference between IWMS and CAFM 1. Integrated Work Management System (IWMS) : Integrated Work Management System (IWMS), as name suggests, is a software tool that is used to manage every aspect related to workplace i.e. all work within organization. 2. Computer-Aided Facility Management (CAFM) : Computer-Aided Facility Management ( 2 min read
• Difference between RPA and BPM 1. Robotics Process Automation (RPA) : Robotics Process Automation (RPA) is a software technology which automates the repetitive tasks that were previously processed by human/employee. It configures bots or uses software robots to complete monotonous and time consuming task. So that employees gets t 3 min read
• Difference between Jira and Asana Jira and Asana are both popular project management tools but serve different primary purposes. Jira is Originally designed for software development teams, Jira focuses on issue and bug tracking, agile project management, and software development processes like Scrum and Kanban. Asana is Geared towar 4 min read
• Difference between ERP and ERP II 1. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP): Enterprise Resource Planning is the foundation system for domestic and global operations, supporting most or all functional areas in their daily operations. is one of the more common categories of business software, especially with large-scale businesses. It is 2 min read
• Difference between Software and Tool 1. Software : Software, as name suggest, is simply a collection of data or set of instructions that are especially designed to perform well defined functions as well as direct operation of computer and instruct on how to use them. 2. Tool : Tool, as name suggests, are software development tools that 2 min read
• Difference between Software and Data 1. Software : Software, as name suggest, is simply a type of software systems or application in any program or group of programs that is especially designed for customer or end user and runs on computer system. 2. Data : Data, as name suggests, is simply a representation of facts, concepts, informat 2 min read
• Difference Between
• Software Engineering

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

Home » Education » Difference Between Action Research and Case Study

Difference Between Action Research and Case Study

Main difference – action research vs case study.

Research is the careful study of a given field or problem in order to discover new facts or principles. Action research and case study are two types of research, which are mainly used in the field of social sciences and humanities. The main difference between action research and case study is their purpose; an action research study aims to solve an immediate problem whereas a case study aims to provide an in-depth analysis of a situation or case over a long period of time.

1. What is Action Research?      – Definition, Features, Purpose, Process

2. What is Case Study?      – Definition, Features, Purpose, Process

What is Action Research

Action research is a type of a research study that is initiated to solve an immediate problem. It may involve a variety of analytical, investigative and evaluative research methods designed to diagnose and solve problems. It has been defined as “a disciplined process of inquiry conducted by and for those taking the action. The primary reason for engaging in action research is to assist the “actor” in improving and/or refining his or her actions” (Sagor, 2000). This type of research is typically used in the field of education. Action research studies are generally conductors by educators, who also act as participants.

Here, an individual researcher or a group of researchers identify a problem, examine its causes and try to arrive at a solution to the problem. The action research process is as follows.

Action Research Process

• Identify a problem to research
• Clarify theories
• Identify research questions
• Collect data on the problem
• Organise, analyse, and interpret the data
• Create a plan to address the problem
• Implement the above-mentioned plan
• Evaluate the results of the actions taken

The above process will keep repeating. Action research is also known as cycle of inquiry or cycle of action since it follows a specific process that is repeated over time.

What is a Case Study

A case study is basically an in-depth examination of a particular event, situation or an individual. It is a type of research that is designed to explore and understand complex issues; however, it involves detailed contextual analysis of only a limited number of events or situations. It has been defined as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used.” (Yin, 1984)

Case studies are used in a variety of fields, but fields like sociology and education seem to use them the most. They can be used to probe into community-based problems such as illiteracy, unemployment, poverty, and drug addiction. 

Case studies involve both quantitative and qualitative data and allow the researchers to see beyond statistical results and understand human conditions. Furthermore, case studies can be classified into three categories, known as exploratory, descriptive and explanatory case studies.

However, case studies are also criticised since the study of a limited number of events or cases cannot easily establish generality or reliability of the findings. The process of a case study is generally as follows:

Case Study Process

• Identifying and defining the research questions
• Selecting the cases and deciding techniques for data collection and analysis
• Collecting data in the field
• Evaluating and analysing the data
• Preparing the report

Action Research : Action research is a type of a research study that is initiated to solve an immediate problem.

Case Study : Case study is an in-depth analysis of a particular event or case over a long period of time.                         

Action Research : Action research involves solving a problem.

Case Study : Case studies involve observing and analysing a situation.

Action Research : Action research studies are mainly used in the field of education.

Case Study : Case studies are used in many fields; they can be specially used with community problems such as unemployment, poverty, etc.

Action Research : Action research always involve providing a solution to a problem.

Case Study : Case studies do not provide a solution to a problem.

Participants

Action Research : Researchers can also act as participants of the research.

Case Study : Researchers generally don’t take part in the research study.

Zainal, Zaidah.  Case study as a research method . N.p.: n.p., 7 June 2007. PDF.

 Soy, Susan K. (1997).  The case study as a research method . Unpublished paper, University of Texas at Austin.

Sagor, Richard.  Guiding school improvement with action research . Ascd, 2000.

Image Courtesy: Pixabay

About the Author: Hasa

Hasanthi is a seasoned content writer and editor with over 8 years of experience. Armed with a BA degree in English and a knack for digital marketing, she explores her passions for literature, history, culture, and food through her engaging and informative writing.

​You May Also Like These

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Action Research vs Case Study : Know the Key Difference Between Two Qualitative Research Methods

A research method is nothing but a technique of inquiry which proceeds from the underlying philosophical assumptions to research design and data collection. Specific research methods imply various assumptions, skills, research practices and the choice of research approach influences the manner in which the data is collected. 

Among various research methods, the most popular and widely used design is qualitative research. This design consists of many philosophical perspectives and various research methods, of which includes  action research and case study research.

Action Research

Action research is a type of qualitative research, which is adopted by the researcher in order to solve the immediate problem arisen during the particular course of time. It is a way which bridges the gap between educational theory and professional practice by improvising their current practices. This type of research helps the researcher to improvise its current practices and is applied for researching into issues.

The main purpose of action research is to learn through action leading to personal or professional development. It enables researchers not only to suggest appropriate lines of action but also to investigate the actual effects of such actions. Further, this type of research is situation based, is useful in problem-solving and deals with individuals or groups with a common purpose of improving practice.

Action research is conducted in classrooms and organisations, where the practitioner will observe what happens and then identify an issue or problem that they need to address. Further according to the issues, ways to solve the problems are identified and applied by the practitioner in their practices. This approach is applied using qualitative designs to explain what is happening and to understand the effects of some educational intervention. 

Further, this research helps in addressing practical problems and in generating knowledge to produce change.

Methods used in collecting data in action research are:

• Observing individuals or groups
• Using audio and videotape recording
• Using structured or semi-structured interviews
• Taking field notes
• Conducting surveys or questionnaires

Case study research is more of a qualitative method of research where there is an in-depth study of an individual or a group of individuals. It explores a contemporary prodigy within its real-life context and provides an organised way of observing the events, collecting data, analysing information, and reporting the results.

Further, the case study method focuses on the description or exploration of a particular phenomenon, rather than identifying the cause and effect. This method includes both quantitative and qualitative data and allow the researchers to see beyond statistical results and understand human conditions like illiteracy, poverty, etc. 

Case studies is categorised in 3 ways: exploratory, explanatory and descriptive.

Exploratory case studies explore any event in the data which serves as a point of interest to the researcher. For example, a researcher conducting an exploratory case study on an individual’s learning process may ask questions, such as, “Does a student use any strategies when he learns a text?” This type of question results in further examination of the phenomenon. 

On the other hand, the explanatory case study examines the data carefully and explains the phenomenon occurred in the data.

Descriptive case studies describe the natural phenomena which occur within the data. For example, what are the strategies used by the learner?, etc. 

Case studies are useful as they help the researcher to analyse the data at a small level but there is a  tendency for the researcher to be biased at the time of interpreting the data. 

Methods used in collecting the data in the case study method are:

• Interviews, transcript analyses or protocol 
• An exploration of artifacts.
• A review of documents and archived record
• Direct participant observations
• Field studies

Difference between action research and case study

At times people confuse the action research method with that of case study as both are a little bit similar to each other. But in real-time, they are quite different.

• Action research focuses on solving the immediate problem whereas, case studies focus on a particular phenomenon for a longer period of time.
• Action research method emphasis on solving the problem whereas case study method emphasis on observing, analysing and interpreting a particular phenomenon or scenario.
• Researcher at times can also be the part of the action research whereas in case study researcher don’t take part in the research.

Now that you know the difference between the two approaches, choose the method accordingly and accomplish your research.

Five Vidya is a team of academic experts who joined hands to assist young scholars and researchers to successfully complete their PhD thesis. Our office and services are based out of Bangalore and Hyderabad (India). We provide academic services including PhD thesis writing, thesis editing, software implementation, journal manuscript writing, business case studies development, and so on

Our Services

• Topic and Research Proposal
• Problem Statement
• Base Papers
• Chapters Writing
• Questionnaire and Experiments
• Research Design

Implementation

• Matlab Projects
• Simulink Projects
• Python Projects
• Java Projects
• Ansys Projects

Journal Papers

• IEEE Papers
• Thought Clearing
• Development Editing
• Review Article
• Empirical Article
• Technical Article
• Qualitative Data Analysis
• Quantitative Data Analysis
• Request a Quote
• PhD Planner

Quick Links

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Money Refund Policy
• Grievance Redressal

Disclaimer:" FiveVidya is a team of academic research consultants, writers and editors who provide ethical and comprehensive support for doctoral candidates for their research. FiveVidya does not provide any ready to submit work for their clients"

• Dr Nicole Brown

Social Research & Practice and Education Ltd.

• Publications
• List of all blog posts
• Practice As Research

Action research or case study?

When planning for a practice-based enquiry or small-scale study you will most often be confronted with the choice between an action research or case study approach. Strictly speaking, there are many approaches to enquiries, but for practical reasons the action research or case study approaches are amongst the most popular for teacher-researchers.

Your decision for one or the other approach must be well justified and to this end you must consult research methodology literature. However, in the following there will be a simplified exploration of the two approaches to get you started.

What is action research? Action research should be considered as a way of life in the classroom. As a reflective practitioner you will observe what happens in your class and then identify an issue or problem that you need to address. After consulting relevant literature you will then formulate a new approach or intervention, which you carry out in your classroom. Once you have worked with this intervention you will reflect and reconsider its effectiveness and impact and the cycle can start again. For a practice-based enquiry you may go through several cycles or through one cycle only. The advantage of the action research is that it naturally develops from your teaching practice and that it addresses real issues within your classroom. Typical critique of action researches would be that they are not rigorous or systematic enough.

What is case study? A case study is more difficult to understand because it can be a method as well as a methodology. Here we only look at case studies for their methodological function. If you want to learn more about a specific issue or you want to explore a particular problem or occurrence, then the case study is for you. The description of what makes a “case” differs in various research methodology publications, but generally speaking a “case” can refer to a group of people, a specific person or issue, a collective of ideas. The advantage of a case study is that you get to know the status quo in all its facets and so you gain a deep insight into your field of study. Common critique of the case study approach is that it is so specialised and specific to the context of the research that generalisability is lost. Sometimes it is also said that the mere description of a status quo is not practical for teachers because there are no changes. My argument would be that detailed knowlegde of what happens in your classroom or school can lead to recommendations for future practice. It is just that you do not enter a cyclical approach of evaluating and revisiting your suggested changes.

Action research or case study? Both approaches have their benefits and limitations within the realm of practice-based enquiries. The choice therefore depends on what it is that you want to find out. Are you planning to introduce a new teaching strategy or changes or interventions with some or all of your pupils? Or are you trying to explore a specific topic? The former would be a justification for action research, whereas the latter hints at a case study. You must be guided by your research focus, your research question or hypothesis and by the research methodology publications you consult.

Related posts:

• Getting started with educational research Getting started with educational research is a short introduction to...
• Writing an action plan How to write an action plan in order to improve...
• Book review: Doing research in education – Theory and practice This review is about the book "Doing research in education"....
• The relationship between creative and participatory approaches to research This is a presentation based on my article Scope and...

Leave a message:

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

 Yes, add me to your mailing list.