bracketing in case study research

Reflexive Bracketing

• First Online: 02 January 2023

Cite this chapter

• Vicki Squires 4  

Part of the book series: Springer Texts in Education ((SPTE))

3815 Accesses

1 Citations

The term “bracketing” was first used by Husserl, in his published work in phenomenology (Husserl, 1950, as cited in Schwandt 2015 . The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry (4th ed.). Sage Publications.). The term means that researchers should suspend judgment and set aside their assumptions and prior notions, with regard to their object of study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Ahern, K. J. (1999). Pearls, pith and provocation: Ten tips for reflexive bracketing. Qualitative Health Research, 9 (3), 407–411.

Article   Google Scholar  

Finlay, L. (2002). “Outing” the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12 (4), 531–545.

Gearing, R. E. (2004). Bracketing in research: A typology. Qualitative Health Research, 14 (10), 1429–1452.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation . Jossey-Bass.

Google Scholar  

Schwandt, T. A. (2015). The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2010). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 11 (1), 80–96.

Additional Resources

Good practices: Reflexivity . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfwnLUmCSoM

Reflexivity, biases and bracketing . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D8RSnX90yU

Reflexivity in qualitative research. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Tccc0Ko68

Vicary, S., Young, A., & Hicks, S. (2017). A reflective journal as learning process and contribution to quality and validity in interpretative phenomenological analysis. Qualitative Social Work, 16 (4), 550–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325016635244

Wall, C., Glenn, S., Mitchinson, S., & Poole, H. (2004). Using a reflective diary to develop bracketing skills during a phenomenological investigation. Nurse Researcher, 11 (4), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2004.07.11.4.20.c6212

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 0X1, Canada

Vicki Squires

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vicki Squires .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Educational Administration, College of Education, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Janet Mola Okoko

Scott Tunison

Department of Educational Administration, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Keith D. Walker

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Squires, V. (2023). Reflexive Bracketing. In: Okoko, J.M., Tunison, S., Walker, K.D. (eds) Varieties of Qualitative Research Methods. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04394-9_66

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04394-9_66

Published : 02 January 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-04396-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-04394-9

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Understanding Bracketing in Qualitative Research

Introduction

Subjectivity in qualitative research, phenomenology, what does bracketing research mean, where does bracketing occur in research, why do we use bracketing in research, how to use bracketing in qualitative research.

Qualitative inquiry is an inherently human and, thus, subjective endeavor . The meaning of a particular concept or phenomenon will invariably differ from one person to the next, dismissing any assumptions that the research process is or should be an objective process.

Addressing methodological challenges , researchers employ a concept called bracketing to mitigate or at least address potential critiques of research rigor for the purpose of establishing and determining validity . What bracketing means will depend on the research orientation you adopt and the research methods you employ. In this article, we'll look at bracketing in qualitative research and what considerations you should keep in mind when accounting for subjectivity.

Before we fully talk about bracketing, let's first address where subjectivity comes from. Researchers may come to qualitative research thinking it must be a clinical, almost sterile process more often seen in chemistry, physics, or the other natural sciences. As a result, there is always a sustained push to mitigate or even eliminate any " biases " that can be seen as skewing the qualitative analysis .

In practice, positivist scholars critique the presence of preconceived notions that are formed without any engagement with existing scholarship. Under this paradigm, an analytical lens that is primarily developed from personal beliefs may not be sufficiently rigorous or connected to the overall dialogue in research.

That said, there is a competing school of thought that asserts that assumptions are a natural element of human analysis that can never be completely divorced from the research process, nor should they. Instead of looking to build an impenetrable wall between personal bias and analysis, sociocultural researchers look to develop a nuanced and contextualized understanding of the social world through a transparent accounting of personal subjectivities.

Bracketing is the product of this tension. Its origins lie in phenomenology, but bracketing has since expanded to other qualitative methodologies . While there are competing processes for bracketing interviews , observations , and other kinds of data , the overall goal is to address how the subjectivities that researchers may bring to the process can influence the data and the analysis .

There is no straightforward definition for bracketing, because how we address this subjectivity also depends on the orientation we adopt when conducting research. Most broadly, qualitative researchers can exist on a continuum defined by two approaches to phenomenology, or ways of looking at and interpreting the social world.

Transcendental phenomenology

On the objective side of this continuum, a transcendental approach, in simple terms, asks researchers to look at the world from a sterile lens, like an alien visiting a new world. The goal is to avoid bringing any preconceived judgment of the subject they are examining and to focus on the core essence of the social and cultural practices and customs they observe.

The reasons for this approach stem from a desire to capture how the social world is perceived at the moment of consciousness before any personal beliefs inform and transform how social phenomena are understood. Transcendental phenomenology thus looks for a description of events and practices that are as free of biases as possible.

Interpretive phenomenology

Some researchers look at the challenges presented by transcendental phenomenology and consider them to be all but impossible to meet. After all, ignoring any preconception about a research context, let alone ignoring all preconceptions, seems to be an unrealistic objective.

Indeed, those who take a grounded theory approach , where all data analysis arises from the researcher's interpretation of the data alone, find it more feasible to fully account for, rather than completely disregard, the thought processes that govern the analytical lens of the researcher.

Rather than try to define a research participant's intended meaning, those who take an interpretive approach to understanding phenomena examine how people make sense of the world around them. The goal of an interpretive approach, then, is to view the interaction between a person's subjectivities and the phenomenon that the inquiry focuses on.

Organize your qualitative project with ATLAS.ti

Our easy-to-use interface makes qualitative data analysis easier than ever. See how with a free trial.

Now that we have an understanding for the different ways through which we can interpret the social world, we can acknowledge how people may address their interpretations in scientific knowledge in different ways. Whatever the research approach, however, the concept of bracketing can be utilized.

Think about written text and how brackets or parentheses set aside additional meaning in a sentence (like this!). A writer uses parentheses to separate words or phrases from the core of the sentence to emphasize the presence of nuances or to allow the reader to separate meaning from the main clause.

The concept of bracketing in the qualitative research process works in a similar fashion. In discourse analysis , interpretations of qualitative interviewing depend significantly on who is interpreting the data .

Imagine that a group of people are analyzing the same set of interviews with elementary school teachers. How would a fellow teacher interpret the interview data, and how would their interpretations differ from that of a parent or a school principal?

Whatever the researcher decides when bracketing interviews, it's important for the researcher to consciously take stock of the factors that inform their analysis of the interview data. Once identified, these factors can then be addressed in the research, either by acknowledging their relation to the collected data or by isolating them from the data altogether.

You can find the practice of bracketing in studies that involve examination of cultural practices or interaction with human subjects. Descriptions of such phenomena are subjectively constructed, requiring a transparent accounting of the characteristics and sociocultural identifiers of the researcher collecting and analyzing the data .

In qualitative health research, think about how sensitive topics like bereavement and palliative care touch on people's emotions. In a research setting involving terminal illness and death, accounting for and separating their subjectivities can be difficult for the researcher. Even advanced nursing practitioners would have trouble adopting a clinically neutral stance in the face of terminally ill patience. Asking the same of researchers collecting data for a qualitative study can be similarly challenging.

The ultimate goal of research is to contribute to scientific knowledge, and the extent of that contribution depends significantly on the research being persuasive to scholars within the research community. Researchers need to believe (or at least find credible) the assertions being proposed in an academic journal, a formal essay, or a research presentation before they can consider it to be useful research.

As a result, research should be considered credible before any researcher can accept the findings presented to them as well as the analysis from which those findings are generated. Even among scholars who accept the inevitability of subjective influences, there is an expectation that those influences are presented in a transparent manner that adequately contextualizes the analysis.

Accounting for personal influences that might inform the collection and analysis phases in a study is essential to bracketing regardless of the approach the researcher adopts. Whether one is suspending " bias " or explaining how their subjective lens affects the study, recognition of what makes the inquiry subjective is an essential prerequisite to bracketing.

Researchers should first conscientiously consider their positionality relative to the research context and its participants. Above all, this should bring about a recognition that the human researcher is not an objective collector of information, and anything which may shape their interpretations should be acknowledged and addressed.

Ask yourself how you approach the research study you are conducting. Think about your search history or search results when building your literature review , for example. What scholars or theories have influenced your view of the research context? Are you conducting this research for a grant proposal or to complete a doctoral program? How do these motivations affect how you collect and analyze data?

A full accounting of your positionality and worldview can only enhance, not interfere with, the research in front of you. Be sure to list in your bracketing notes all possible influences that can be relevant to conducting your study and explaining your findings to your research audience.

If you are adopting a transcendental approach to phenomenology, the bracketing notes are your resource that help you suspend your preconceptions when conducting your study. This practice requires constant reflection on your own conduct in the field.

This approach requires an open mind when you engage with the social world. This might involve documenting as much of the concept or phenomenon as objectively as possible without making interpretations or judgments (e.g., describing what something is rather than whether it is "good" vs "bad" or you agree or disagree). Or it might require you to reflect on your observations afterward to determine if you need to adjust your analysis so it captures more of the essence of the object under inquiry.

On the other hand, an approach that acknowledges the necessity of subjective influences is less about suspending preconceptions and more about describing your analysis in the context of your analytical lens. What do you notice or focus on because of your identities? What might you overlook or misinterpret because of any outside status you might have in the field?

Bracketing within an interpretive paradigm requires constant reflection as well as deep engagement with participants in the field to capture as much of their perspectives as possible. A thick description, made possible by a rich understanding of how those in the field see the world, can help the researcher mitigate any misinterpretations and recognize differences in individual characteristics.

Turn to ATLAS.ti for all your research needs

Take the challenges out of data analysis with our powerful research tools. Check out a free trial today.

Bracketing as a skill in conducting unstructured qualitative interviews

Affiliation.

• 1 Pirkanmaa Hospital District, Tampere, Finland.
• PMID: 25783146
• DOI: 10.7748/nr.22.4.8.e1317

Aim: To provide an overview of bracketing as a skill in unstructured qualitative research interviews.

Background: Researchers affect the qualitative research process. Bracketing in descriptive phenomenology entails researchers setting aside their pre-understanding and acting non-judgementally. In interpretative phenomenology, previous knowledge is used intentionally to create new understanding.

Data sources: A literature search of bracketing in phenomenology and qualitative research.

Review methods: This is a methodology paper examining the researchers' impact in creating data in creating data in qualitative research.

Discussion: Self-knowledge, sensitivity and reflexivity of the researcher enable bracketing.

Conclusion: Skilled and experienced researchers are needed to use bracketing in unstructured qualitative research interviews.

Implications for research/practice: Bracketing adds scientific rigour and validity to any qualitative study.

Keywords: Bracketing; phenomenology; qualitative interview; reflexivity; researcher’s role; unstructured interview.

• Interviews as Topic*
• Professional Competence*

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Bracketing in Qualitative Research

2012, Qualitative Social Work

Related Papers

Nurse Researcher

Minna Sorsa

Aim To provide an overview of bracketing as a skill in unstructured qualitative research interviews. Background The researchers have an impact on the qualitative research process. Bracketing originating from descriptive phenomenology entail that the researcher can set aside their pre-understanding and act non-judgementally. In interpretative phenomenology previous knowledge is used intentionally to create new understanding. Data sources Literature search of bracketing in phenomenology and qualitative research. Implications for research Bracketing adds scientific rigor and validity to any qualitative study. Discussion Self-knowledge, sensitivity and reflexivity of the researcher enable bracketing. Conclusion The requirement for practising unstructured qualitative research interviews using bracketing are skilled and experienced researchers.

The Qualitative Report

Zenobia Chan

Journal of Organizational Change Management

Viktor Dörfler

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to improve our understanding of bracketing, one of the most central philosophical and theoretical constructs of phenomenology, as a theory of mind. Furthermore, we wanted to showcase how this theoretical construct can be implemented as a methodological tool.Design/methodology/approachIn this study we have adopted an approach similar to a qualitative meta-synthesis, comparing the emergent patterns of two empirical projects, seeking synergies and contradictions and looking for additional insights from new emerging patterns.FindingsOn a philosophical level, we have found that bracketing, as a theoretical construct, is not about the achievement of objectivity; quite to the contrary, it embraces subjectivity and puts it centre-stage. On a theoretical level, we have achieved a better understanding of Husserl's phenomenology, as a theory of mind. On a methodological level, we have achieved a powerful way of supplementing and/or clarifying research fi...

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Søren Engelsen

In recent decades, phenomenological concepts and methodological ideals have been adopted by qualitative researchers. Several influential strands of what we will refer to as Phenomenological Research (PR) have emerged. We will call into question whether PR has been sufficiently sensitive to the issue of the prerequisites, or basic conditions, for doing phenomenological research. The practical implementation of phenomenological key concepts is important in working with phenomenology as a research methodology. Core concepts such as “bracketing” seems to be particularly important in PR. The question we would like to raise is not whether “bracketing” is possible, or to what extent, nor how it should be understood. Rather, we wish to illuminate the prerequisites for bracketing itself. We believe that a fuller recognition of the embeddedness of research practices like PR does have some broadly practical implications, which we shall expand upon in the present article.

Bridin Harnett

This paper is a phenomenological exploration of intercultural bracketing. In this exploration, it is hoped to describe and interpret intercultural bracketing in ‘negotiating the troubled waters’ of intercultural communication in context (Kramsch, 1998, p.29), with a view to taping the essence of lived intercultural experiences in an intercultural encounter. I posit that bracketing is experientially unique in intercultural communication and have deemed to term it intercultural bracketing, as it manifests itself in the lived experiences of an intercultural encounter. In my endeavor to understand what it means to bracket in an intercultural sense, I hope to use an eclectic interpretative approach of phenomenology (Palmer et al., 2010, Larkin et al., 2015), with a view to understanding the intersubjectivity occurring between persons-in-context in proffering a notion of intercultural bracketing. By intersubjectivity, I refer to ‘the difference of two minds’ and the ability to supply the knowledge (Davidson, 2001) to scaffold communication in successful communication. In using an eclectic interpretive phenomenological approach to this qualitative research, I draw both on my own lived experience and on a live media text, hoping to represent voices that are both heard and unheard in realizing a representation of intercultural bracketing located in the epistemic space of the penny dropping moment of objectivity as I have coined it, located in the intersubjectivity of persons-in context, in naming and identifying meaning which move our roles and relationships forward.

Travis Marn

Katherine Gregory

Failed research can function as the underbelly of all qualitative research projects that come to fruition. These shadow projects offer invaluable insights to future research and researchers alike. In this article, I trace a failed life history of sex offenders project from its conceptualization to its abandonment, after conducting a series of searches on the online National Sex Offender Registry database. Through the use of preliminary field notes and an analysis of media representations, I examine the role of bracketing of the topic, as a by-product of the phenomenological tradition, and other methodological issues such as physical and emotional vulnerability as a lone researcher, preconceptions harbored about “challenging” populations, and how a research setting can contribute to failed research.

International journal of nursing studies

Henry Harder

While it appears that the term parsimony has been used in the context of qualitative research and qualitative research methodology, there is a distinct absence of writing that actually explores, seeks to define, understand, critique, apply and/or evaluate the concept in qualitative research literature. This paper explores a number of issues pertaining to parsimony in qualitative research. It is the hope of the authors that this paper might raise awareness of the hitherto unexplored issues, stimulate some further interest in these and prompt other qualitative researchers to contribute to the ensuing debate. While there are currently no definitive criteria for determining the parsimony of qualitative research findings, it would be epistemologically inappropriate and philosophically incongruent to import and translate quantitative notions of parsimony. However, the ideas, principles and epistemological functions that parsimony serves can and should be applied to the qualitative paradig...

Psychology in Society

Philippa Kerr

This paper identifies a number of common conceptual and methodological weaknesses that crop up in qualitative social science research articles and theses. These weaknesses are: (1) conceptual frameworks with no implications; (2) conceptual frameworks which dominate findings; (3) generic technical jargon in methods sections instead of a transparent account of how the research and analytical decisions actually proceeded; (4) superficial and/or anecdotal results sections; and (5) an overuse of social science jargon that sometimes does not mean very much. Suggestions for improving on these weaknesses are made. It is argued that the validity of a piece of qualitative research is established through coherence among all sections of a paper or thesis-concepts, methods, and findings. The metaphor in the paper's title conveys the point that simply including the right-sounding terminology or sections in a qualitative research article or thesis in the hope that this will, in and of itself, produce good social science is a strategy about as likely to succeed as sticking feathers together in the hope of eventually producing a duck!

Psychological Methods, 13, 254-271.

Anna Madill

In discussing the place of diverse qualitative research within psychological science, the authors highlight the potential permeability of the quantitative-qualitative boundary and identify different ways of increasing communication between researchers specializing in different methods. Explicating diversity within qualitative research is facilitated, initially, through documenting the range of qualitative data collection and analytic methods available. The authors then consider the notion of paradigmatic frame and review debates on the current and future positioning of qualitative research within psychological science. In so doing, the authors argue that the different ways in which the concept of paradigm can be interpreted allow them to challenge the idea that diverse research paradigms are prima facie incommensurate. Further, reviewing the ways in which proponents of qualitative research are seeking to reconfigure the links between paradigms helps the authors to envisage how communication between research communities can be enhanced. This critical review allows the authors to systematize possible configurations for research practice in psychology on a continuum of paradigm integration and to specify associated criteria for judging intermethod coherence.

RELATED PAPERS

SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis

Calixto A Maldonado

Steen Holmgren

Avnish Chauhan

sukram thapa

Magallania (Punta Arenas)

Héctor Berroeta

Applied Mathematics and Computation

Marcus Vinicius Xavier de Oliveira

Physics Letters A

MArco Reyes

Materials & Design

peter haberecht

Ciência Rural

Paulo Armando Victoria De Oliveira

Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

Rajat Handa

British Journal of Cancer

Trivadi Ganesan

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society)

Roberta Siciliano

Bioscience Journal

José Luiz Carvalho

Surgical Science

Wasudeo Gadegone

2012 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)

jorge mendes

Jaime Fernando

CURSO IPERC EN TIEMPOS DEL COVID-

Victor Castillo

Implementation Science

Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases

Sophie Mavrogeni

Ars Longa, 31

Antònia Juan Vicens

Tamer Hassan

The Journal of Pediatric Academy

Ismail Dursun

Cinzia De Lotto, Adalgisa Mingati (eds). Nei territori della slavistica. Percorsi e sentieri: scritti per Danilo Cavaion. Padova: Unipress, p. 407-413

Han Steenwijk

See More Documents Like This

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Sage Choice

Continuing to enhance the quality of case study methodology in health services research

Shannon l. sibbald.

1 Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

2 Department of Family Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

3 The Schulich Interfaculty Program in Public Health, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

Stefan Paciocco

Meghan fournie, rachelle van asseldonk, tiffany scurr.

Case study methodology has grown in popularity within Health Services Research (HSR). However, its use and merit as a methodology are frequently criticized due to its flexible approach and inconsistent application. Nevertheless, case study methodology is well suited to HSR because it can track and examine complex relationships, contexts, and systems as they evolve. Applied appropriately, it can help generate information on how multiple forms of knowledge come together to inform decision-making within healthcare contexts. In this article, we aim to demystify case study methodology by outlining its philosophical underpinnings and three foundational approaches. We provide literature-based guidance to decision-makers, policy-makers, and health leaders on how to engage in and critically appraise case study design. We advocate that researchers work in collaboration with health leaders to detail their research process with an aim of strengthening the validity and integrity of case study for its continued and advanced use in HSR.

Introduction

The popularity of case study research methodology in Health Services Research (HSR) has grown over the past 40 years. 1 This may be attributed to a shift towards the use of implementation research and a newfound appreciation of contextual factors affecting the uptake of evidence-based interventions within diverse settings. 2 Incorporating context-specific information on the delivery and implementation of programs can increase the likelihood of success. 3 , 4 Case study methodology is particularly well suited for implementation research in health services because it can provide insight into the nuances of diverse contexts. 5 , 6 In 1999, Yin 7 published a paper on how to enhance the quality of case study in HSR, which was foundational for the emergence of case study in this field. Yin 7 maintains case study is an appropriate methodology in HSR because health systems are constantly evolving, and the multiple affiliations and diverse motivations are difficult to track and understand with traditional linear methodologies.

Despite its increased popularity, there is debate whether a case study is a methodology (ie, a principle or process that guides research) or a method (ie, a tool to answer research questions). Some criticize case study for its high level of flexibility, perceiving it as less rigorous, and maintain that it generates inadequate results. 8 Others have noted issues with quality and consistency in how case studies are conducted and reported. 9 Reporting is often varied and inconsistent, using a mix of approaches such as case reports, case findings, and/or case study. Authors sometimes use incongruent methods of data collection and analysis or use the case study as a default when other methodologies do not fit. 9 , 10 Despite these criticisms, case study methodology is becoming more common as a viable approach for HSR. 11 An abundance of articles and textbooks are available to guide researchers through case study research, including field-specific resources for business, 12 , 13 nursing, 14 and family medicine. 15 However, there remains confusion and a lack of clarity on the key tenets of case study methodology.

Several common philosophical underpinnings have contributed to the development of case study research 1 which has led to different approaches to planning, data collection, and analysis. This presents challenges in assessing quality and rigour for researchers conducting case studies and stakeholders reading results.

This article discusses the various approaches and philosophical underpinnings to case study methodology. Our goal is to explain it in a way that provides guidance for decision-makers, policy-makers, and health leaders on how to understand, critically appraise, and engage in case study research and design, as such guidance is largely absent in the literature. This article is by no means exhaustive or authoritative. Instead, we aim to provide guidance and encourage dialogue around case study methodology, facilitating critical thinking around the variety of approaches and ways quality and rigour can be bolstered for its use within HSR.

Purpose of case study methodology

Case study methodology is often used to develop an in-depth, holistic understanding of a specific phenomenon within a specified context. 11 It focuses on studying one or multiple cases over time and uses an in-depth analysis of multiple information sources. 16 , 17 It is ideal for situations including, but not limited to, exploring under-researched and real-life phenomena, 18 especially when the contexts are complex and the researcher has little control over the phenomena. 19 , 20 Case studies can be useful when researchers want to understand how interventions are implemented in different contexts, and how context shapes the phenomenon of interest.

In addition to demonstrating coherency with the type of questions case study is suited to answer, there are four key tenets to case study methodologies: (1) be transparent in the paradigmatic and theoretical perspectives influencing study design; (2) clearly define the case and phenomenon of interest; (3) clearly define and justify the type of case study design; and (4) use multiple data collection sources and analysis methods to present the findings in ways that are consistent with the methodology and the study’s paradigmatic base. 9 , 16 The goal is to appropriately match the methods to empirical questions and issues and not to universally advocate any single approach for all problems. 21

Approaches to case study methodology

Three authors propose distinct foundational approaches to case study methodology positioned within different paradigms: Yin, 19 , 22 Stake, 5 , 23 and Merriam 24 , 25 ( Table 1 ). Yin is strongly post-positivist whereas Stake and Merriam are grounded in a constructivist paradigm. Researchers should locate their research within a paradigm that explains the philosophies guiding their research 26 and adhere to the underlying paradigmatic assumptions and key tenets of the appropriate author’s methodology. This will enhance the consistency and coherency of the methods and findings. However, researchers often do not report their paradigmatic position, nor do they adhere to one approach. 9 Although deliberately blending methodologies may be defensible and methodologically appropriate, more often it is done in an ad hoc and haphazard way, without consideration for limitations.

Cross-analysis of three case study approaches, adapted from Yazan 2015

The post-positive paradigm postulates there is one reality that can be objectively described and understood by “bracketing” oneself from the research to remove prejudice or bias. 27 Yin focuses on general explanation and prediction, emphasizing the formulation of propositions, akin to hypothesis testing. This approach is best suited for structured and objective data collection 9 , 11 and is often used for mixed-method studies.

Constructivism assumes that the phenomenon of interest is constructed and influenced by local contexts, including the interaction between researchers, individuals, and their environment. 27 It acknowledges multiple interpretations of reality 24 constructed within the context by the researcher and participants which are unlikely to be replicated, should either change. 5 , 20 Stake and Merriam’s constructivist approaches emphasize a story-like rendering of a problem and an iterative process of constructing the case study. 7 This stance values researcher reflexivity and transparency, 28 acknowledging how researchers’ experiences and disciplinary lenses influence their assumptions and beliefs about the nature of the phenomenon and development of the findings.

Defining a case

A key tenet of case study methodology often underemphasized in literature is the importance of defining the case and phenomenon. Researches should clearly describe the case with sufficient detail to allow readers to fully understand the setting and context and determine applicability. Trying to answer a question that is too broad often leads to an unclear definition of the case and phenomenon. 20 Cases should therefore be bound by time and place to ensure rigor and feasibility. 6

Yin 22 defines a case as “a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context,” (p13) which may contain a single unit of analysis, including individuals, programs, corporations, or clinics 29 (holistic), or be broken into sub-units of analysis, such as projects, meetings, roles, or locations within the case (embedded). 30 Merriam 24 and Stake 5 similarly define a case as a single unit studied within a bounded system. Stake 5 , 23 suggests bounding cases by contexts and experiences where the phenomenon of interest can be a program, process, or experience. However, the line between the case and phenomenon can become muddy. For guidance, Stake 5 , 23 describes the case as the noun or entity and the phenomenon of interest as the verb, functioning, or activity of the case.

Designing the case study approach

Yin’s approach to a case study is rooted in a formal proposition or theory which guides the case and is used to test the outcome. 1 Stake 5 advocates for a flexible design and explicitly states that data collection and analysis may commence at any point. Merriam’s 24 approach blends both Yin and Stake’s, allowing the necessary flexibility in data collection and analysis to meet the needs.

Yin 30 proposed three types of case study approaches—descriptive, explanatory, and exploratory. Each can be designed around single or multiple cases, creating six basic case study methodologies. Descriptive studies provide a rich description of the phenomenon within its context, which can be helpful in developing theories. To test a theory or determine cause and effect relationships, researchers can use an explanatory design. An exploratory model is typically used in the pilot-test phase to develop propositions (eg, Sibbald et al. 31 used this approach to explore interprofessional network complexity). Despite having distinct characteristics, the boundaries between case study types are flexible with significant overlap. 30 Each has five key components: (1) research question; (2) proposition; (3) unit of analysis; (4) logical linking that connects the theory with proposition; and (5) criteria for analyzing findings.

Contrary to Yin, Stake 5 believes the research process cannot be planned in its entirety because research evolves as it is performed. Consequently, researchers can adjust the design of their methods even after data collection has begun. Stake 5 classifies case studies into three categories: intrinsic, instrumental, and collective/multiple. Intrinsic case studies focus on gaining a better understanding of the case. These are often undertaken when the researcher has an interest in a specific case. Instrumental case study is used when the case itself is not of the utmost importance, and the issue or phenomenon (ie, the research question) being explored becomes the focus instead (eg, Paciocco 32 used an instrumental case study to evaluate the implementation of a chronic disease management program). 5 Collective designs are rooted in an instrumental case study and include multiple cases to gain an in-depth understanding of the complexity and particularity of a phenomenon across diverse contexts. 5 , 23 In collective designs, studying similarities and differences between the cases allows the phenomenon to be understood more intimately (for examples of this in the field, see van Zelm et al. 33 and Burrows et al. 34 In addition, Sibbald et al. 35 present an example where a cross-case analysis method is used to compare instrumental cases).

Merriam’s approach is flexible (similar to Stake) as well as stepwise and linear (similar to Yin). She advocates for conducting a literature review before designing the study to better understand the theoretical underpinnings. 24 , 25 Unlike Stake or Yin, Merriam proposes a step-by-step guide for researchers to design a case study. These steps include performing a literature review, creating a theoretical framework, identifying the problem, creating and refining the research question(s), and selecting a study sample that fits the question(s). 24 , 25 , 36

Data collection and analysis

Using multiple data collection methods is a key characteristic of all case study methodology; it enhances the credibility of the findings by allowing different facets and views of the phenomenon to be explored. 23 Common methods include interviews, focus groups, observation, and document analysis. 5 , 37 By seeking patterns within and across data sources, a thick description of the case can be generated to support a greater understanding and interpretation of the whole phenomenon. 5 , 17 , 20 , 23 This technique is called triangulation and is used to explore cases with greater accuracy. 5 Although Stake 5 maintains case study is most often used in qualitative research, Yin 17 supports a mix of both quantitative and qualitative methods to triangulate data. This deliberate convergence of data sources (or mixed methods) allows researchers to find greater depth in their analysis and develop converging lines of inquiry. For example, case studies evaluating interventions commonly use qualitative interviews to describe the implementation process, barriers, and facilitators paired with a quantitative survey of comparative outcomes and effectiveness. 33 , 38 , 39

Yin 30 describes analysis as dependent on the chosen approach, whether it be (1) deductive and rely on theoretical propositions; (2) inductive and analyze data from the “ground up”; (3) organized to create a case description; or (4) used to examine plausible rival explanations. According to Yin’s 40 approach to descriptive case studies, carefully considering theory development is an important part of study design. “Theory” refers to field-relevant propositions, commonly agreed upon assumptions, or fully developed theories. 40 Stake 5 advocates for using the researcher’s intuition and impression to guide analysis through a categorical aggregation and direct interpretation. Merriam 24 uses six different methods to guide the “process of making meaning” (p178) : (1) ethnographic analysis; (2) narrative analysis; (3) phenomenological analysis; (4) constant comparative method; (5) content analysis; and (6) analytic induction.

Drawing upon a theoretical or conceptual framework to inform analysis improves the quality of case study and avoids the risk of description without meaning. 18 Using Stake’s 5 approach, researchers rely on protocols and previous knowledge to help make sense of new ideas; theory can guide the research and assist researchers in understanding how new information fits into existing knowledge.

Practical applications of case study research

Columbia University has recently demonstrated how case studies can help train future health leaders. 41 Case studies encompass components of systems thinking—considering connections and interactions between components of a system, alongside the implications and consequences of those relationships—to equip health leaders with tools to tackle global health issues. 41 Greenwood 42 evaluated Indigenous peoples’ relationship with the healthcare system in British Columbia and used a case study to challenge and educate health leaders across the country to enhance culturally sensitive health service environments.

An important but often omitted step in case study research is an assessment of quality and rigour. We recommend using a framework or set of criteria to assess the rigour of the qualitative research. Suitable resources include Caelli et al., 43 Houghten et al., 44 Ravenek and Rudman, 45 and Tracy. 46

New directions in case study

Although “pragmatic” case studies (ie, utilizing practical and applicable methods) have existed within psychotherapy for some time, 47 , 48 only recently has the applicability of pragmatism as an underlying paradigmatic perspective been considered in HSR. 49 This is marked by uptake of pragmatism in Randomized Control Trials, recognizing that “gold standard” testing conditions do not reflect the reality of clinical settings 50 , 51 nor do a handful of epistemologically guided methodologies suit every research inquiry.

Pragmatism positions the research question as the basis for methodological choices, rather than a theory or epistemology, allowing researchers to pursue the most practical approach to understanding a problem or discovering an actionable solution. 52 Mixed methods are commonly used to create a deeper understanding of the case through converging qualitative and quantitative data. 52 Pragmatic case study is suited to HSR because its flexibility throughout the research process accommodates complexity, ever-changing systems, and disruptions to research plans. 49 , 50 Much like case study, pragmatism has been criticized for its flexibility and use when other approaches are seemingly ill-fit. 53 , 54 Similarly, authors argue that this results from a lack of investigation and proper application rather than a reflection of validity, legitimizing the need for more exploration and conversation among researchers and practitioners. 55

Although occasionally misunderstood as a less rigourous research methodology, 8 case study research is highly flexible and allows for contextual nuances. 5 , 6 Its use is valuable when the researcher desires a thorough understanding of a phenomenon or case bound by context. 11 If needed, multiple similar cases can be studied simultaneously, or one case within another. 16 , 17 There are currently three main approaches to case study, 5 , 17 , 24 each with their own definitions of a case, ontological and epistemological paradigms, methodologies, and data collection and analysis procedures. 37

Individuals’ experiences within health systems are influenced heavily by contextual factors, participant experience, and intricate relationships between different organizations and actors. 55 Case study research is well suited for HSR because it can track and examine these complex relationships and systems as they evolve over time. 6 , 7 It is important that researchers and health leaders using this methodology understand its key tenets and how to conduct a proper case study. Although there are many examples of case study in action, they are often under-reported and, when reported, not rigorously conducted. 9 Thus, decision-makers and health leaders should use these examples with caution. The proper reporting of case studies is necessary to bolster their credibility in HSR literature and provide readers sufficient information to critically assess the methodology. We also call on health leaders who frequently use case studies 56 – 58 to report them in the primary research literature.

The purpose of this article is to advocate for the continued and advanced use of case study in HSR and to provide literature-based guidance for decision-makers, policy-makers, and health leaders on how to engage in, read, and interpret findings from case study research. As health systems progress and evolve, the application of case study research will continue to increase as researchers and health leaders aim to capture the inherent complexities, nuances, and contextual factors. 7

How to Use Bracketing in Qualitative Research

How to Write a Conceptual Framework for Nursing Research

Bracketing is a key part of some qualitative research philosophies, especially phenomenology and other approaches requiring interviews and observations, such as ethnography. Also known as "mind mapping" or "phenomenological reduction," this process intends to develop a "non-judgmental research team" whose objectivity about the participants and the material will not impede the perception of the phenomenon at the heart of the study, according to Chris Tattersall, et al. This "truly radical" process must be undertaken with care and rigor, explains the peer-reviewed Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Philosopher Edmund Husserl called it "epoche," or "freedom from suppositions."

The Researcher Begins

Write a central idea or question in the center of a blank sheet of paper; you could also draw a meaningful symbol. This central term or image should relate to the research project.

Brainstorm other terms that relate to this central concept, and write them around it on the page.

Draw connections among the various terms you have written as you see them, based on how the ideas relate to each other.

Continue jotting down terms and drawing connections among them, without pausing to edit yourself, until you have exhausted your ideas about this central topic. Use additional sheets of paper if necessary.

Reread your "mind map," the brainstormed diagram of concepts and their connections; on a separate sheet of paper, list the connections that reoccur or that seem most prominent.

Create a new "mind map," using the listed term(s) as the new central concept(s).

Researcher and Participant Engage

Arrange a pre-interview with the research participant(s), individually. Explain this informal pre-interview is intended to help you both explore and isolate your preconceptions about the subject of the research.

Ask each participant broad questions about the context of the research subject, and encourage him or her to ask you questions.

Answer the participants' questions thoroughly and frankly; conceive of this interview as a conversation, rather than a one-sided information-gathering exercise.

Write up your reflections after each of these pre-interviews.

• Bracketing is viewed by many researchers as an ethical imperative, so it should be undertaken seriously and thoroughly; depending on the reasons for your research -- such as for an academic journal or for a grant proposal -- you may be asked to provide your bracketing notes or at least to describe the procedures you used as part of your methodology.
• Some researchers recommend writing up a narrative or a formal essay based on these bracketing exercises. You may find it useful to leave your mind map and interview notes for a day or two, then reread them before writing up such a reflection.
• Researchers typically record interviews, and you may find it helpful to record the bracketing pre-interview. If you do so, your participant(s) may find the setting to be more formal and less conversational, so undertake the recording with sensitivity and, of course, with your participants' consent.

Related Articles

How to Write a Dissertation Summary

What Is the Meaning of Theoretical Framework?

How to Use Concept Mapping for Writing

How to Prepare a Theoretical Framework for a Research Paper

How to Write Research Papers From Start to Finish

How to Write an Evidence-based Paper in Nursing

How to Write a Thesis Statement for "Robinson Crusoe"

How to Introduce a Research Paper Sample

• Nursing Times: Mind mapping as a tool in qualitative research (V. 103, #26), by Chris Tattersall, et al.
• International Journal of Qualitative Methods 3 (1): A Phenomenological Research Design Illustrated, by Thomas Groenewald

Jennifer Spirko has been writing professionally for more than 20 years, starting at "The Knoxville Journal." She has written for "MetroPulse," "Maryville-Alcoa Daily Times" and "Some" monthly. She has taught writing at North Carolina State University and the University of Tennessee. Spirko holds a Master of Arts from the Shakespeare Institute, Stratford-on-Avon, England.

Celebrating 20 Years of Research: Highlights From NIOSH’s Nanotechnology Research Center’s Field Studies Team

As the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Nanotechnology Research Center (NTRC) marks its 20th anniversary, we celebrate the groundbreaking work of the Field Studies Team. Organized in 2006, the team began by evaluating potential workplace exposures to engineered nanomaterials. Engineered nanomaterials (those created on purpose and not incidentally) have at least one dimension between 1 and 100 nanometers. One nanometer is extremely small—one millionth of a millimeter. Materials at this tiny scale can have unique properties.

The NTRC Field Studies Team is composed of industrial hygienists and engineers and has performed more than 140 on-site exposure assessments. They evaluate advanced materials and processes in many workplaces ranging from large manufacturers, research and development labs, and government facilities, to schools, libraries, and other non-industrial settings. Their efforts contribute to understanding health and safety risks in emerging industries that use nanomaterials.

Early Challenges and Growth

In the early years, the team faced daunting challenges. At that time, there were no proven sampling or analysis methods for nanomaterials. To improve worker safety and health programs, the team had to gain the trust of companies to allow site visits while protecting trade secrets. The team members had to interpret exposure data and communicate risks without guidance from exposure limits, which did not yet exist for any nanomaterials.

Over time, the NTRC Field Studies Team gained experience through fieldwork and partnerships. Team members explained and demonstrated how NIOSH protects intellectual property. The team compared techniques across materials and settings, allowing team members to standardize assessment approaches. These assessment strategies are documented in resources like the Nanoparticle Emission Assessment Technique (NEAT) and the Nanoparticle Exposure Assessment Technique (NEAT 2.0) .

An Expanded Focus

Over the years, the team’s focus shifted from mainly carbon nanotubes and nanofibers to other materials like titanium dioxide and silver nanomaterials. Lately, the team has been studying some newly developed materials:

• Nanocellulose
• Quantum dots
• Boron nitride nanotubes
• Thermoplastic filaments with nanomaterial additives
• Photocatalytic liquid resins
• Powders used in 3D printing

The team has been asked to evaluate these materials in diverse settings, from 3-person labs to massive aerospace companies.

What Happens During a Field Study

When the NTRC Field Studies Team visits a workplace, researchers assess potential exposures from nano-related processes and materials. The team also evaluates control technologies to reduce exposures. A field study can involve these activities:

• Measuring to find out if workers are exposed to harmful vapors, fumes, or particles. The team uses many kinds of tools to do this.
• Evaluating and suggesting ways to keep workers safe from exposure.
• Looking carefully at how work is done to make sure it’s safe.
• Checking the personal protective equipment workers wear, like respirators, to see if it is used correctly.

Benefits to Companies

Companies that ask for a site visit receive on-site expertise from NIOSH free of charge. NIOSH experts evaluate exposures and controls. Companies receive a confidential report with exposure results, control evaluations, and recommendations to improve worker health and safety. Workers who volunteer for personal air sampling get their personal air sampling results confidentially. The final report includes these results, but it does not identify individual workers.

Companies can use these reports to implement best practices and cost-effective controls. For example, one company had multiple team visits as they expanded production and relocated twice. The team gave exposure control recommendations that were incorporated as the company grew. This protected workers throughout the changes.

Benefits to NIOSH

NIOSH and the industry benefit from early hazard identification, risk assessments, and best practices. Here are some examples:

• Collect workplace exposure data which informs lab studies so that they are realistic and applicable to actual working conditions.
• Design and improve controls that prevent and minimize worker exposures.
• Improve risk assessment knowledge and techniques.

Looking Ahead

Materials science is expanding rapidly, outpacing occupational health research. For this reason, the team has extended its reach from focusing on nanomaterials to include any advanced materials and related manufacturing processes. NIOSH describes advanced materials as new or modified substances designed to perform better in at least one way. Although all nanomaterials are advanced, not all advanced materials are nanomaterials. This expanded scope allows the team to evaluate emerging manufacturing processes and products such as biomanufacturing and lithium-ion batteries.

The overall goal is to assist, from an occupational health and safety standpoint, in the timely and responsible development of these emerging technologies.

How to Ask for Help from NIOSH

As the nanotechnology landscape constantly evolves, the NTRC Field Studies Team seeks new partners for assessments. NIOSH welcomes opportunities to provide assistance and protect worker health alongside business goals. Companies interested in a free workplace assessment of nanomaterials or advanced materials can email [email protected] . To learn more, visit our website: Nanotechnology Field Studies Effort .

CDR Kevin L. Dunn, MS, CIH REHS/RS, DAAS, is senior industrial hygienist of the NTRC Field Studies Team in the Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch, Division of Field Studies and Engineering.

Eric Glassford, MS, CIH, is an industrial hygienist on the NTRC Field Studies Team in the Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch, Division of Field Studies and Engineering.

Lilia Chen, MS, CIH, is the NTRC coordinator and deputy branch chief of the Emerging Technologies Branch, Division of Science Integration.

This blog is part of a series to commemorate the 20 th  anniversary of the Nanotechnology Research Center. Click  here   for additional blogs in the series and on other nanotechnology topics. 

Information gained from these site visits has resulted in products such as tools, guidance documents, informational fact sheets, peer-reviewed publications, and the establishment of recommended exposure limits. A selection of products is listed below:

Dunn KL, Dunn KH, Hammond D, Lo S . [2020]. Three-dimensional printer emissions and employee exposures to ultrafine particles during the printing of thermoplastic filaments containing carbon nanotubes or carbon nanofibers. J Nanopart Res 22 (46), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-020-4750-8 .

Dunn KL, Hammond D, Menchaca K, Roth F, Dunn KH [2020]. Reducing ultrafine particulate emission from multiple 3D printers in an office environment using a prototype engineering control. J Nanopart Res 22 (112), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-020-04844-4 .

Glassford E, Neu-Baker NM, Dunn KL, Dunn KH [2020]. Exposures during wet production and use processes of nanomaterials: a summary of 11 worksite evaluations. Ind Health 58 :467–478, https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.2019-0169 .

NIOSH [2018]. Characterizing 3D printing emissions and controls in an office environment. NIOSH Science Blog. By Dunn KL, Hammond D, Tyraswski J, Duling M. August 16, https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2018/08/16/3d-printing .

NIOSH [2018]. Controlling health hazards when working with nanomaterials: Questions to ask before you start. Poster. By Glassford E, Dunn KL, Dunn KH. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2018-103, https://doi.org/10.26616/NIOSHPUB2018103 .

NIOSH [2020]. 3D printing with filaments: Health and safety questions to ask. Poster. By Glassford E, Dunn KL, Dunn KH, Hammond D, Tyrawski J. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2020-115, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2020-115 .

NIOSH [2020]. 3D printing with metal powders: Health and safety questions to ask. Poster. By Glassford E, Dunn KL, Dunn KH, Hammond D, Tyrawski J. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2020-114. https://doi.org/10.26616/NIOSHPUB2020114 .

NIOSH [2021]. Current Intelligence Bulletin 70: Health effects of occupational exposure to silver nanomaterials. By Kuempel E, Roberts JR, Roth G, Dunn KL, Zumwalde R, Drew N, Hubbs A, Trout D, Holdsworth G. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2021-112, https://doi.org/10.26616/NIOSHPUB2021112 .

Vamsi K, Roberts J, Glassford E, Gill R, Friend S, Dunn K, Erdely A [2022]. Understanding toxicity associated with boron nitride nanotubes: Review of toxicity studies, exposure assessment at manufacturing facilities, and read-across. JMR 37 (24): 4620–4638, https://doi.org/10.1557/s43578-022-00796-8 .

Xin X, Barger M, Roach A, Bowers L, Stefaniak A, Kodali V, Glassford E, Dunn KL, Dunn KH, Wolfarth M, Friend S, Leonard S, Kashon M, Porter D, Erdely A, Roberts R [2020]. Toxicity evaluation following pulmonary exposure to an as-manufactured dispersed boron nitride nanotube (BNNT) material in vivo. NanoImpact 19 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2020.100235 .

Post a Comment

Cancel reply.

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

• 50th Anniversary Blog Series
• Additive Manufacturing
• Aging Workers
• Agriculture
• Artificial Intelligence
• Back Injury
• Bloodborne pathogens
• Cardiovascular Disease
• cold stress
• commercial fishing
• Communication
• Construction
• Cross Cultural Communication
• Dermal Exposure
• Education and Research Centers
• Electrical Safety
• Emergency Response/Public Sector
• Engineering Control
• Environment/Green Jobs
• Epidemiology
• Fire Fighting
• Food Service
• Future of Work and OSH
• Healthy Work Design
• Hearing Loss
• Heat Stress
• Holiday Themes
• Hydraulic Fracturing
• Infectious Disease Resources
• International
• Landscaping
• Law Enforcement
• Manufacturing
• Manufacturing Mondays Series
• Mental Health
• Motor Vehicle Safety
• Musculoskeletal Disorders
• Nanotechnology
• National Occupational Research Agenda
• Needlestick Prevention
• NIOSH-funded Research
• Nonstandard Work Arrangements
• Observances
• Occupational Health Equity
• Oil and Gas
• Outdoor Work
• Partnership
• Personal Protective Equipment
• Physical activity
• Policy and Programs
• Prevention Through Design
• Prioritizing Research
• Reproductive Health
• Research to practice r2p
• Researcher Spotlights
• Respirators
• Respiratory Health
• Risk Assessment
• Safety and Health Data
• Service Sector
• Small Business
• Social Determinants of Health
• Spanish translations
• Sports and Entertainment
• Strategic Foresight
• Struck-by injuries
• Student Training
• Substance Use Disorder
• Surveillance
• Synthetic Biology
• Systematic review
• Take Home Exposures
• Teachers/School Workers
• Temporary/Contingent Workers
• Total Worker Health
• Translations (other than Spanish)
• Transportation
• Uncategorized
• Veterinarians
• Wearable Technologies
• Wholesale and Retail Trade
• Work Schedules
• Workers' Compensation
• Workplace Medical Mystery
• Workplace Supported Recovery
• World Trade Center Health Program
• Young Workers

To receive email updates about this page, enter your email address:

Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
• Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
• You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
• CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website.