Gauging the Rigor of Qualitative Case Studies in Comparative Lobbying Research. A Framework and Guideline for Research and Analysis

Abstract

Engaging in comparative lobbying research is a challenging task, because public affairs is complex and highly context-dependent. Thus, qualitative case studies have been researchers' primary choice. However, the case method has been subject to much debate surrounding its rigor, in terms of reliability, internal validity, and generalizability, and particularly its potential for theory building. To propose a framework for researchers conducting lobbying case studies as well as for reviewers receiving such work, we apply a positivistic approach on case study rigor from management studies and expand the framework to tackle the specific challenges of comparative qualitative lobbying research. Thus, we expand the research framework by a set of variables specific to public affairs: We add enrichment for internal validity, contextuality, and comparability for external validity, interdisciplinarity for construct validity, and hypertextsearchable databases for reliability. Thereby, we aim to transfer the lessons learned from management studies in terms of rigorous qualitative case studies to public affairs to help build novel and explanatory theory in the field and to provide guidance to researchers how to design a rigorous case study.

Traveling frames: How corporate and civil society actors try to influence public administration and courts in a case on nuclear emission data in Switzerland

“…To reflect on and build theory, a qualitative case study method was applied (Lock & Seele, ). To triangulate data, all actors in the case were contacted with interview requests for primary data collection.…”

Revisiting the Bandwagoning Hypothesis: A Statistical Analysis of the Alliance Dynamics of Small States

“…1. The following authors discuss in detail the shortcomings of small-N and case study research with regard to its inability to afford validity and generalizability: Eisenhardt (1989); Glaser and Strauss (1967); March et al (1991); Yin (1994); Lock and Steele (2018).…”