Case studies are a popular and noteworthy type of research study in software engineering, offering significant potential to impact industry practices by investigating phenomena in their natural contexts. This potential to reach a broad audience beyond the academic community is often undermined by deficiencies in reporting, particularly in the context description, study classification, generalizability, and the handling of validity threats. This paper presents a reflective analysis aiming not for an exhaustive methodological critique but to share insights that can enhance the quality and impact of case study reporting.

We emphasize the need to follow established guidelines, accurate classification, and detailed context descriptions in case studies. Additionally, particular focus is placed on articulating generalizable findings and thoroughly discussing generalizability threats. We aim to encourage researchers to adopt more rigorous and communicative strategies, ensuring that case studies are methodologically sound, resonate with, and apply to software engineering practitioners and the broader academic community. The reflections and recommendations offered in this paper aim to ensure that insights from case studies are transparent, understandable, and tailored to meet the needs of both academic researchers and industry practitioners. In doing so, we seek to enhance the real-world applicability of academic research, bridging the gap between theoretical research and practical implementation in industry.