Search results

The traditional and still dominant logic among nearly all empirical positivist researchers in schools of management is to write symmetric (two-directional) variable hypotheses (SVH) even though the same researchers formulate their behavioral theories at the case (typology) identification level. Cyert and March’s (1963), Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall), Howard and Sheth’s (1969, Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York, NY: Wiley), and Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C.’s (1978, Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. [A. D. Meyer, collaborator; H. J. Coleman Jr., contributor]. New York, NY: McGraw Hill) typologies of organizations’ strategy configurations (e.g., “Prospectors, Analyzers, and Defenders”) are iconic examples of formulating theory at the case identification level. When testing such theories, most researchers automatically, nonconsciously, switch from building theory of beliefs, attitudes, and behavior at the case identification level to empirically testing of two-directional relationships and additive net-effect influences of variables. Formulating theory focusing on creating case identification hypotheses (CIH) to describe, explain, and predict behavior and then empirically testing at SVH is a mismatch and results in shallow data analysis and frequently inaccurate contributions to theory. This chapter describes the mismatch and resulting unattractive outcomes as well as the pervasive practice of examining only fit validity in empirical studies using symmetric tests. The chapter reviews studies in the literature showing how matching both case-based theory and empirical positivist research of CIH is possible and produces findings that advance useful theory and critical thinking by executives and researchers.

Purpose: Case studies are detailed empirical investigations into a complex entity that emphasize the uniqueness of the case and are valuable for making a theoretical contribution. We aim to reveal the types of theoretical contributions case study research can make to the field of strategy and management and explore how case study design can create the opportunities for making a theoretical contribution.

Methodology/Approach: The dynamic capability approach focuses on the firm-specific processes through which firms integrate, build, or reconfigure resources. A comprehensive review of case studies in this field is conducted in five search engines, resulting in a data set of 13 in-depth case studies.

Findings: We demonstrate that using case studies to extend and refine theory enhances knowledge in the field of dynamic capabilities. In strategy and management research, case studies identify and refine constructs and their relationships, develop and confirm propositions, and embed constructs within a larger set of relationships. We reveal that sampling strategy, research setting, and multiple lenses are aspects of case study design that create opportunities for making a theoretical contribution.

Practical Implications: We suggest that case study researchers strategically and purposefully sample cases, vary the setting conditions, or draw upon numerous research fields to make a theoretical contribution.

Originality/Value of Paper: Going beyond the current discussion, we show that case studies have the potential to extend and refine theory. We shed new light on how dynamic capabilities can benefit from case study research by discovering the antecedents that shape the development of capabilities and determining the boundary conditions of the dynamic capabilities approach.

This study applies asymmetric rather than conventional symmetric analysis to advance theory in occupational psychology. The study applies systematic case-based analyses to model complex relations among conditions (i.e., configurations of high and low scores for variables) in terms of set memberships of managers. The study uses Boolean algebra to identify configurations (i.e., recipes) reflecting complex conditions sufficient for the occurrence of outcomes of interest (e.g., high versus low financial job stress, job strain, and job satisfaction). The study applies complexity theory tenets to offer a nuanced perspective concerning the occurrence of contrarian cases – for example, in identifying different cases (e.g., managers) with high membership scores in a variable (e.g., core self-evaluation) who have low job satisfaction scores and when different cases with low membership scores in the same variable have high job satisfaction. In a large-scale empirical study of managers (n = 928) in four (contextual) segments of the farm industry in New Zealand, this study tests the fit and predictive validities of set membership configurations for simple and complex antecedent conditions that indicate high/low core self-evaluations, job stress, and high/low job satisfaction. The findings support the conclusion that complexity theory in combination with configural analysis offers useful insights for explaining nuances in the causes and outcomes to high stress as well as low stress among farm managers. Some findings support and some are contrary to symmetric relationship findings (i.e., highly significant correlations that support main effect hypotheses).

The introductory chapter includes how to design-in good practices in theory, data collection procedures, analysis, and interpretations to avoid these bad practices. Given that bad practices in research are ingrained in the career training of scholars in sub-disciplines of business/management (e.g., through reading articles exhibiting bad practices usually without discussions of the severe weaknesses in these studies and by research courses stressing the use of regression analysis and structural equation modeling), this editorial is likely to have little impact. However, scholars and executives supporting good practices should not lose hope. The relevant literature includes a few brilliant contributions that can serve as beacons for eliminating the current pervasive bad practices and for performing highly competent research.

Provides a response to the various calls which have been made by accounting researchers for detailed case studies of accounting practice. Provides a methodological study rather than a detailed case study. Aims to reposition the role of case studies in the continuing generation of alternative perspectives on accounting practice. Explores the dynamics of the interaction between theory and observation. Argues that there is a need for case‐based accounting researchers to become more directly involved in conversations concerning theories of the organizational and social functioning of accounting. Expresses the belief that accounting case studies can do more than “illustrate” particular social theories and that they have the potential to play a broader role in the development of accounting theory. Concludes that to secure such potential, accounting researchers should be, and in a post‐modern world can be, free to make use of existing theories, metaphors and prior case studies in a less constrained way than has hitherto been considered appropriate.

Recurrent “methodological disputes” have haunted the social sciences, again and again polarizing the case-oriented quest for specification against the natural science inspired quest for general, high-level theory. As a consequence, too much social science research is captured in either one of two vicious circles: ever more highly specified monographic case studies or preoccupation with periodically shifting general theories. The interaction of these two circles increases the risk of widespread amnesia: as social scientists are either bogged down in a stream of cases or flying high with the most recent grand (meta-)theories, social science forgets the actual empirical knowledge that is being meticulously created, maintained and revised in the daily handicraft carried out by a growing mass of researchers.

The purpose of this paper is to advocate that case study research needs to renew itself and employ its full potential as an innovative theory‐generating methodology in management disciplines; and to propose that a viable strategy for such renewal is to exploit the power of case study research and network theory as supplementary methodologies.

The paper is a reflective and synthesising comparative study.

If one steps down from the tip of the iceberg and inspects the underwater properties of case study research and network theory a common core is found: the recognition of complexity. The methodologies supplement each other, case study research primarily using verbal language and qualitative data, while network theory uses a nodes‐and‐links language that opens up for verbal, graphic and mathematical treatment. Case study research is primarily associated with qualitative research in social sciences and network theory with quantitative research in both social and natural sciences. By abolishing the unfortunate categories of qualitative/quantitative and natural sciences/social sciences that have been set against each other, and letting them join forces for a common goal – to learn about life – people open up for methodological creativity.

By comparing case study research with network theory on a fundamental level, the paper offers a novel perspective on research. It is a contribution to an overriding desire to improve the understanding of management and society.

This to show how critical success factors (CSFs) from practitioner-oriented research can be tested and used to generate new theory.

This paper uses an extended example regarding the integration of IT departments following organizational mergers and acquisitions to illustrate in proof of concept that such practitioner-oriented research can generate new substantive theory and be used to begin a cycle of representation-testing leading to enhancing domain knowledge. The method used consists of the identification of an exemplary practitioner-oriented research article, restatement of CSFs into testable propositions, gathering data through interviews with phenomenon participants, analyzing and interpreting data relative to these CSFs, then presenting the results pertaining to these CSFs and observations from examining them holistically.

No CSFs were affirmed in all cases, neither were they rejected in all cases. The pattern of answers reveals a significant difference between factors representing general management best practices and technical practices. The higher frequency among management factors shows a relative universality to these items, whereas the technical issues are noted less frequently as they each apply to smaller subsets of all post mergers and acquisitions integrations but remain critical when they do apply. This set of responses suggests that the frequency of responses does not indicate the importance of any given factor across settings.

This study suggests (1) CSFs, while generally helpful, can also be misleading when applied such that, where of potential importance, they can be brought into a theorizing mode for refinement and extraction of additional knowledge; (2) that CSFs can be sorted into those tending toward general management principles that apply most frequently in contrast to those of critical importance but applicable across fewer situations; and (3) that as a proof of concept the case to theory transformation method can work to introduce heuristic knowledge into a process-initiating theorizing, raising prospects for subsequent continued improvement.

Assuming robust reporting of CSFs in well-conducted cases, this study knows that at least in one setting these factors were important in achieving particular results. However, this study does not know, without subsequent testing and theorizing, whether the factor applies across circumstances and whether it requires particular handling (e.g. timing may be critical but relies on varied conditions to indicate when actions need be taken). By theorizing based upon CSFs for important IS phenomena, the authors create a bridge between knowledge as used in practice and the scientific tools for increasing its value over time.

Although the authors know of case and multiple case studies surfacing best practices in post mergers and acquisitions integrations, they know of no broad studies across numerous organizations; they also know of no studies demonstrating the relationship of management and technical CSFs in an IS phenomenon. Further, although there are other techniques advocated for theory initiation and building, the authors know of none that transforms heuristic or anecdotal knowledge for subsequent theorizing and continual improvement at a more detailed level than mid-range theory.