The IRAC method of case study analysis

 A Legal Model for the Social Studies

Not only did the legal profession give educators the instructional technique of case studies, but it also contributed a concomitant method of case study analysis. Although disciplines such as business management, social sciences, and medicine have extensively used the methodology of case studies, students in these disciplines were not provided with a method to analyze a case. Some of these cases required only an individual value conclusion; other cases required a specific conclusion based upon substantive knowledge of the discipline. Still others required both types of conclusions. Only in law classes are students given an unequivocal method for case analysis. According to this method, students recognize a legal issue from the facts in the case and then analyze the facts according to a legal precedent and reach a conclusion.

The underlying assumptions of teaching-effectiveness research can be applied to this topic in a social studies class: Teachers cannot assume that all students on their own will develop a method of case analysis; that initial success will motivate the student to continue the analysis process; and that the students require a clear demonstration or modeling of the case analysis method (Brophy and Good 1986). The social studies literature does not give examples of these analysis methods. Because the use of case studies in the social studies fosters critical thinking, class interaction, and personal initiative, a method of case study analysis warrants the attention of social studies teachers.

When the case study instructional technique is used in the social studies classroom, students are often required to comprehend, assess, and evaluate amounts of information that may be overwhelming. Unfortunately, students do not receive enough practice in the method of case study analysis before they are required to comprehend relationships, generalizations, and patterns. Such a situation is self-defeating for students because without acquiring the rudimentary skills of case analysis, they will not be able to contribute to the lesson at hand.

In addition, students are then expected to make value judgments about the facts, issues, and conclusions of a case study. To make an informed and coherent value judgment, students must first comprehend the facts, recognize the issues that arise from those facts, analyze the facts in relation to the definition or rule of a term, and then reach a conclusion about the analysis. To make a value-laden decision such as "I don't agree with that," the student should first say that the facts produce issue X and then analyze the facts in accordance with each element of the rule in order to make a viable conclusion about whether the issue is proved or disproved. With this procedure, the value decision becomes meaningful to the individual student and to the group participating in the case study discussion. This process of analysis is known as the IRAC method.

The IRAC Method The IRAC method is an instructional tool that can aid students in the comprehension and evaluation of information so that they can make informed value decisions. It is an acronym for Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion. Although this is a legal model used to evaluate hypothetical situations in law cases, it is by no means limited to the study of the law. Useful for case studies presented in varied mediums such as narratives, videos/films, or recordings, the IRAC method may be applied to other activities such as defining a term or demonstrating a concept, principle, relationship, analogy, or contrasting idea. Often the instructional focus is on the end result of case study discussion rather than on how to "walk through" a method or approach to be used by the students in the case analysis.

By using the IRAC method, social studies teachers can help their students acquire a process for analyzing a case study. This building block method, which starts with smaller chunks of material, develops understanding relationships. It enhances the immediate application of learning by translating theory into practice to help students enlarge their vocabulary and attain new concepts. The method demonstrates to students that the correct analysis of a case gives them an evaluation and verification tool to assist them in making meaningful value judgments.

Acquisition of a Process to Analyze Case Studies

A case study is a realistic application or demonstration of a theory or principle. The student is required to relate textbook material to a concrete situation and then make a practical judgment. Students can relate to case studies because they understand that they could possibly find themselves in similar situations.

After reading, viewing, or hearing a case, students use the IRAC method to recognize the facts that raise the issues. They then apply the elements of the rule or definition to the facts to verify or disprove the issues in the conclusion.

Students' analytical skills are developed through a systematic mastery of complex problem solving in a rational manner. Students become more aware of their own abilities and limitations and are given the opportunity to practice in a positive environment.

Another variation of this method includes informing students about the entire case-i.e., issues, rules, analysis, and conclusions-and then soliciting their input. In another method, the teacher presents two cases with all of the aforementioned elements and does not tell the students which is the correct one. The teacher then has them choose. The danger in using either of these methods is that the student is slighted. The teacher has done too much work for the students, who are not required to discover the issue, review the rule, and analyze the facts to determine the correct conclusion (Lee 19X3).

Description, brief summary:

The IRAC method is a simple and easy method for case study analysis. It helps students reach a conclusion with a simple process, briefing the issue, pointing out the rules, analyzing rules and reaching a conclusion bases on all of these elements.

This method works with other studies too, such as, business management, social sciences, and medicine. It is said to be exact only with law studies.

It is said the process or method if applied by teachers help develop a sense of analysis in the student. They learn to make value judgments and conclude based on these.

As an example a case study done by myself;

Case: 911 receives a call at 18:40 telling them that there has been an accident and that two people have died. Jaime Najera Molina seems to be the person that has caused the accident, he was taken to the hospital for a blood test and the results say that he was drunk with 0.90 grams of alcohol per blood liter. The OIJ receives a video of the accident that was recorded by a security cam of a nearby business. The video demonstrates that the driver (Jose Najera Molina) drives at an excessive speed and surpasses the rest of the cars in line and then collisions with the car of the other multiple victims killing them.

Issue: Was there negligence or guilt/bad faith in the accident?

Rule: Negligence requires that a duty was owed, that the duty was breached, and that the breach was the actual and proximate cause of damage. There’s to types of negligence, with conscience or without it.

Guilt/Bad Faith requires that the person either had de the will of committing the crime or that didn’t want to but if it happened, the person accepted it.

Analysis: As a driver on the public freeway, Jose owed a duty of due care not to pass other cars in line in a case like this. Jose had a duty to drive at a reasonable speed and without excess. Jose had a duty to dry sober under a certain grams of alcohol per liter, which was not met.

Jose had a duty not to expose other drivers to the risk of collision because of jumping places in line or driving. Jose also had the duty not to expose others to an unreasonable harm because of driving under the influence.

Jose is the actual cause of the other driver's injury. It was foreseeable that another car would be coming from the opposite direction.

Jose did not have the intention of killing someone else, although he knew that it was possible that another car could come from the opposite direction and cause an accident.

Conclusion: Jose is liable for negligence because he violated a statute of not overpassing other cars in line and not driving under the influence. He underwent a conscientious negligence because he knew that the result was possible but he had faith that it would not occur. 

Bittner, M. M. (1990). The IRAC method of case study analysis. Social Studies, 81(5), 227

Retrieve date; 2012-04-16


Done by Eric Fernandez