Reflections on the use of case studies in the accounting, management and organizational disciplines

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to explain the background to the special issue and to provide an introduction to the articles on case studies included in the issue. Design/methodology/approach -The paper uses a review of developments in both the qualitative tradition and case studies in management research to provide a backdrop for the articles that are included in the issue. The articles discuss: the merits of unique cases and singular forms of evidence within a single case; the comparability of case studies with tools in other areas; and methods of theorising from case studies. Findings -The merits of case studies have often been understated. The articles in this issue highlight a broader variety of uses of case study research than is commonly recognized. Originality/value -This guest editorial introduces the papers in this issue, which may be read either as individual contributions that have merits per se, or as part of a collection that this introductory paper helps to knit together.

What Is the Use of a Single-Case Study in Management Research?

“…In management research, the interest in the case study as a method for generating and testing theory has recently gained strength, (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007;Gibbert, Ruigrok, & Wicki, 2008;Lee et al, 2007;Platt, 2007;Siggelkow, 2007).…”

“…Therefore, the process of theory building through this methodological approach is inductive, i.e., the theory emerges as patterns of relationships between constructs are recognized in the case and between cases (Eisenhardt, 1989;Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007, Lee, Collier, & Cullen, 2007Siggelkow, 2007;Yin, 2009). …”

“…However, there is still a clear predominance of surveys and statistical methods as research tools in this area (Cassel, Symon, Buehring, & Johnson, 2006;Gibbert, Ruigrok, & Wicki, 2008;Lee et al, 2007;Platt, 2007).…”

“…Studies such as those by Chandler (1962), Penrose (1960), Peters and Waterman (1982), Pettigrew (1973), Prahalad and Hamel (1990), and many others, brought revolutionary insights to the field. Besides, the interest in case studies as a method for generating and testing theory has recently gained strength, especially in research in the areas of management (Cassel, Symon, Buehring, & Johnson, 2006;Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007;Gibbert, Ruigrok & Wicki, 2008;Lee, Collier, & Cullen, 2007;Platt, 2007;Siggelkow, 2007). However, there still is a clear predominance of surveys and statistical methods -typical of positivist work and involving a large number of cases -in the studies published by the most prestigious journals (Gibbert, Ruigrok, & Wicki, 2008;Lee, Collier, & Cullen, 2007;Platt, 2007).…”

“…Such criticism comes primarily from scholars with a positivist, normal science orientation. For some of these researchers, case studies may be used in research but are considered appropriate only in the preliminary stages of developing a new theory, when the relevant variables are still being explored (Cassel, Symon, Buehring, & Johnson, 2006;Eisenhardt, 1989;Lee, Collier, & Cullen, 2007;Platt, 2007). Such criticism may help explain the relative scarcity of published cases in reputable journals, but other reasons -such as the usually large and long effort needed to conduct a case study (Yin, 2009) -may also apply.…”