Evaluating and Rethinking the Case Study

Abstract

This paper will first explore briefly how the case study fell out of favour as a legitimate research tool, and how case study researchers responded to the critique that case study research lacked internal and external validity. Some case study advocates attempted to meet this critique by using the case to compare different theoretical predictions, dividing the case into subcases, or treating the case as an experiment. A more effective response distinguishes between ‘extensive’ and ‘intensive’ research designs, and critiques the extensive model. The paper then provides a clarification of purpose and a revived emphasis on theory, history, and intervention to develop the case study method. This paper will begin to construct a comprehensive case study methodology independent of the old critiques, and will show the crucial place which case studies must occupy in our craft.

‘Cursed’ Communities? Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Company Towns and the Mining Industry in Namibia

“…This use and the approach adopted, was informed by writing on case study research by Stoeker (1991), Yin and Davies (2007) and Yin (2009). An in-depth case study approach was selected reflecting the complex nature of the communities and issues studied, and an understanding that only though in-depth examination could these complexities be unravelled.…”

A review of qualitative case methods trends and themes used in technology transfer research

“…The consistent and precise utilization of terminology thereby has to comprise both content and methodology to overcome critics designating case methods as less rigorous (Dubé & Paré, 2003;Hoskisson, Hitt, Wan, & Yiu, 1999). Moreover, qualitative case study researchers need to be aware of the criticisms of using this approach particularly in relation to validity (Stoecker, 1991), formulation of case analysis (Miles, 1979), as well as bias, generalisability and hypotheses generation (Flyvberg, 2006). In designing studies using qualitative case methods, researchers need to consider carefully these criticisms, also with regard to their intended contribution, i.e.…”

“…Particular criticisms centred on internal and external validity (Stoecker, 1991), on unclear conventions concerning case analysis (Miles, 1979) as well as on rigor (Dubé & Paré, 2003;Hoskisson, Hitt, Wan, & Yiu, 1999). Specifically, Flyvberg (2006) identified and addressed what he examined as five misunderstandings of case study research including the theoretical knowledge, generalisability, generation of hypotheses, bias and appropriate summaries of case studies.…”

Internationalization of State Multilatinas: A Multi-Case Study in The Oil Sector

“…The case study method has been strongly questioned by some authors (Venkatraman and Grant, 1986;Stoecker, 1991;Bowen and Wiersema, 1999;Rouse and Daellenbach, 1999) who consider that their prestige is low, and is not usually considered (Martìnez, 2006). It has been described that the case study method presents problems of reliability and validity, due to which quantitative methods are basically used in empirical research.…”