Note that this mindset introduces a form of knowledge building that is radically different from the classical, normal-science way. Instead of disseminating explicit theories and generalizations, Stake (1978, 1982), Lincoln and Guba (1985), and Donmoyer (1990) advocate the building of individual knowledge, which is, to a great extent, personal knowledge as defined by Polanyi (1965). Platt (2007) points out that clinical psychologists like Freud, for example, followed the medical tradition of using single-case studies to generate theory. For this, their overriding concern was to understand the specifics of a particular case under analysis, being less concerned with the potential for generalization of their findings. Still, the field of psychology developed under the strong influence of a statistical tradition, although many researchers consider it an inadequate scientific basis for psychological theory, since individual behavior can vary significantly from one context to another. Sjoberg, G. Williams english writing essay sample, N. Vaugham essays in existentialism, T.R. & Sjoberg, A.F. (1991). The case study approach in social research: basic methodological issues. In: Feagin, J.R. Orum, A.M. and Sjoberg, G. (Eds.) A case for the case study. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 27-79. [ Links  ] Martins, G. A. (2008). Estudo de caso: uma reflexão sobre a aplicabilidade em pesquisas no Brasil. Revista de Contabilidade e Organizações, 2(2), 8-18. [ Links  ] The epistemological standings underlying the two radically different approaches to knowledge acquisition can be captured by the two questions: "What is going on here?" and "What is this a case of?" (Tsoukas, 2009). A researcher can assume these contrasting postures. In the first one, he/she seeks the peculiarities of the case, the things that make it different from other cases. In the second one, he/she seeks the characteristics that make the case belong to a pre-defined class of cases. You cart a pig into my living room and tell me that it can talk. I say, "Oh really? Show me." You snap with your fingers and the pig starts talking. I say "Wow, you should write a paper about this." You write up your case report and send it to a journal. What will the reviewers say? Will the reviewers respond with "Interesting, but that's just one pig. Show me a few more and then I might believe you"? (Ramachandran, 1998 as cited in Siggelkow, 2007, p. 20) Stake, R.E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7(2), 5-8. [ Links  ] Yin, R. K. (2001). Estudo de caso: planejamento e métodos. 2ª. ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman. [ Links  ] According to the positivist outlook, the biggest limitation of a case study has been its virtual inability to provide a sound basis for the generalization of study findings. (This limitation is considered even more severe if the study involves a single case.) Often this is expressed as absence of external validity - the impossibility of extending the case study findings to a population of other cases ( Donmoyer, 1990 ; Kennedy, 1979 ; Yin, 2009). Supporters of single case studies have developed a series of arguments - to be examined below - to solve the problem of "a sample of one" but none of the arguments has convinced those in favor of generalization by means of multiple cases or statistical samples. A NOTE ON THE USE OF SINGLE-CASE STUDIES IN MANAGEMENT RESEARCH IN BRAZIL Prahalad, C.K. & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79-91. [ Links  ] Another line of argument is to deny the need to find universal laws, applicable to a population of cases, under the assumption that the objective of social research is not to find universal laws but to gain a deep understanding of one particular case. This is typically the case in biography, institutional self-study, program evaluation dissertation how to write an abstract, therapeutic practice, and other lines of work, in areas such as education, counseling, social work, therapeutic work, political science and others (Stake, 1994). We believe that management research may profit from assuming a similar posture. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. [ Links  ] Numagami, T. (1998). The infeasibility of invariant laws in management studies: a reflective dialogue in defense of case studies. Organization Science (9)1, 1-15. [ Links  ] Whittington, R. (1988). Environmental structure and theories of strategic choice. Journal of Management Studies, 25(6), 521-536. [ Links  ] Gibbert and Ruigrok (2010) nicely document this effort in their content analysis of the 159 cases published by 10 top management journals in the period 1995-2000. They found that few case study authors explicitly referred to the four aforementioned rigor criteria. Of those who did, some reported extensively concrete research actions taken to ensure rigor. Another finding, of great importance to the present discussion, was that papers addressing rigor reported strategies that were more detailed, thus ensuring internal and construct validity rather than external validity (i.e. generalizability). A real-life example of the value of a case not being representative of a given population is provided by Starbuck's (1993) account of a New York law firm that was enjoying exceptional success, arguably because it adopted policies and guidelines that differed markedly from those of the other law firms in the city. One is reminded of the essay by March, Sproull and Tamuz (1991) arguing that cases may be used as mechanisms for interpretation and generation of meaning in organizations. They reflect on processes of organizational learning and show the role of single cases (or fragments of a particular history) in the construction of shared interpretations, valid knowledge, and increased organizational performance (March, Sproull, & Tamuz, 1991). These authors also contend that single cases offer organizations valuable mechanisms that help one organize and interpret experience in order to build a shared understanding of it. Furthermore, the existence of these shared beliefs has great advantages, even if the resulting interpretation is not entirely correct. Among these advantages is the possibility to increase the potential of learning arising from a single or even ambiguous event and imaginatively build hypothetical stories, but with deep meaning for the organization. In the section where we discussed generating theory through a single-case study, we have already examined one strategy to counter the criticism that case studies cannot lead to statistical generalization, which is to resort to an alternative strategy, named "analytical generalization", in which the findings of a case study can be "generalized" to a theory (Yin, 2009). This way, the findings of a case study are seen as a preliminary step in the process of building a general theory vegetarian essays, containing law-like propositions supposedly applicable to a population of similar cases. However, note that this is still one attempt to meet positivist criteria. Criticism of case studies using positivist criteria argue as follows. As for internal validity - the extent to which we can infer that a causal relationship exists between two or more variables - and construct validity - the extent to which the constructs used in the case accurately measure the concepts they are intended to measure - criticism focuses on the impossibility of making controlled observations in a case study (in a laboratory or through statistical analysis). Critics also argue about the more basic impossibility of ensuring objectivity, in view of the possibility of cognitive distortion of data by the researcher conducting the study. Another aspect concerns the processes of deduction used by the researcher, because it is difficult to ensure that they are logical or controlled, being carried out by means of verbal propositions, not by mathematics; hence, the researcher can register false evidence or biased views (Lee, 1989; Yin, 2009). Dismissing representativeness as a criterion Gibbert, M. & Ruigrok, W. (2010). The "what" and "how" of case study rigor: three strategies based on published work. Organization Research Methods, 13(4), 710-737. [ Links  ] In the text above, we cite only studies published in English examples of college essay papers, which tends to reflect the mindset of Anglo-Saxon academia. We are sure there are many critical writings about the single-case study published in other countries and in other languages. Examination of potential contributions that such studies could give the discussion of the subject treated here is unfeasible because of the sheer size of the task, not to mention the language barrier. However, as the authors of this article are Brazilian, it is worth including here a rapid survey of the use of single-case studies in Brazilian research on management. Unfortunately, we have not found published Brazilian research focused specifically on single-case studies in management research and written in English. Therefore, the papers we will refer to in this section were published in Portuguese. As mentioned above, a conception of such transference is that proposed by Stake (1978, 1982), who called it "naturalistic generalization". This term deserves some clarification. "Naturalistic" is used here to mean that the phenomenon is observed in its natural context and that the researcher introduces no outside stimulus, instead witnessing behavior as it naturally occurs in the environment. "Generalization" as used here means knowledge (mostly tacit, see Polanyi, 1958 ) which is usually acquired by direct experience, but may also be acquired through vicarious experience - undergone by the reader of the case in place of its author or actors (Stake, 1978, 1982). Lee, A. S. (1989). A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. MIS Quarterly, 13(1), 33-50. [ Links  ] Yet, even if none calls in question the contribution of these landmark case studies, two facts tend to mar the acceptance of case studies in general among management researchers. One is that the most reputable journals of management publish few articles based on casework. The other fact is that this research method is often criticized in terms of its inherent inability to meet standard scientific criteria for research. 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 written papers of tcs, but other reasons - such as the usually large and long effort needed to conduct a case study ( Yin, 2009 ) - may also apply. In addition, theory building from cases constitutes what Yin (2009) calls "analytic generalization", which he presents as a substitute for the "statistical generalization" of the hypothetical-deductive method. The latter is not possible with a single case or few cases. Instead of generalizing findings from a large sample of cases to a population of cases represented by the sample - as in the hypothetical-deductive method - the researcher generalizes findings in the single case or few cases to theory. For many users of case studies, this concept of generalization redeems the case study from the accusation of not being usable for generalization. Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. [ Links  ] We consider three of those efforts: rejecting the positivist criteria and enhancing the value of particularity, dismissing the importance of representativeness in certain types of research, and disciplining transfer of knowledge between cases. Despite these arguments justifying the use of case studies, to a positivist, single or multiple case studies would typically be acceptable only for providing inputs in the preliminary stages of developing a new theory how to write a thesis proposal example, when the relevant variables are still being explored (Cassel, Symon, Buehring, & Johnson, 2006; Eisenhardt, 1989; Numagami, 1998 ; Platt, 2007). Specifically, some authors question the need - or even the feasibility - to pursue the four criteria of research rigor adopted in the natural sciences: construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability. Numagami (1998) provides an example of this kind of reasoning. He objects to the normal-science requirement of reliability and generalizability of research findings in social sciences by questioning the possibility of establishing invariant laws for social phenomena. Numagami (1998) contends that reliability and generalizability (external validity) are relevant criteria only if the researcher is searching for an invariant and universal law. In fact, meeting these criteria would be impossible without an invariant law over time (Numagami, 1998). The applicability of these criteria to management studies depends, therefore, on one's accepting the existence of invariant laws in the field of management. Numagami (1998) cites authors who have recently attacked the premise of the existence of universal laws in social (especially management) phenomena, such as G. Sjoberg, N. Williams, T.R. Vaughan, and A.F. Sjoberg (1991). Tsoukas (1989), and Whittington (1988). Numagami (1998) sets himself to clarify the conditions under which invariant laws may be found in management and observes that these conditions are so stringent that they would not be satisfied in most real-world instances. In addition, he argues that the quest for external validity and reliability may work against the very biggest benefits that case studies can bring, namely those related to specific and contextual issues that case studies are better at detecting. He concludes by suggesting that serious consideration be given to whether the objective of management studies should be changed from a search for invariant laws of practical use to the encouragement of reflective dialogue in society (Numagami, 1998). Tsoukas (2009) points out that the more researchers are concerned about understanding the specifics of a phenomenon, the more descriptive they will become and the more flexible they will be in terms of the theories they consider. On the other hand, the more researchers try to place their study within what is known about the phenomenon of interest, the more they will describe the phenomenon in terms of what has been defined in the literature. Thus, a single case study may bring an important contribution to theory development if the particulars of the case are seen as opportunities to make further adjustments in an already crystallized understanding of reality. since it is a theory-building approach that is deeply embedded in rich empirical data, building theory from cases is likely to produce theory that is accurate, interesting, and testable. Thus it is a natural complement to mainstream deductive research (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007, pp. 25-26). Donmoyer (1990) proposes a third conception of transferring findings. He shares with Stake (1978, 1982) and Lincoln and Guba (1985) the interest in the single study. He uses the terms "generalization" and "generalizability" in the sense of transferring single-case findings to another case, as Stake and Lincoln and Guba do. However, he claims to advance the application of these ideas. He starts by noting that Stake (1978, 1982) does not explain how in-depth knowledge of a single case helps us understand and act more intelligently in other potentially different cases. As for Lincoln and Guba (1985), Donmoyer argues that their assumption that findings are only transferable from the studied case to another if the contexts are similar may not be true. If these points are accepted, it will become clear the two approaches are not incompatible tuesday with morrie essay, and they may be complementary. Based on our review, we suggest that a better understanding by researchers holding different philosophical persuasions of the arguments that justify each particular use of the case study as a research method would allow a better, reflexive dialogue among researchers and benefit management research as a whole. In this paper, we examine in detail the objections raised to the use of cases in management research, show the efforts spent by some researchers to respond to these, and show criteria of research quality - other than the ones usually used by positivist research - which are arguably more suitable to evaluate casework. The single case is focused here - as opposed to multiple cases - because the single case is the research design that most vividly brings out the contrast between case studies and the most prestigious research strategy used in management nowadays - sampling and statistical analysis via a large number of cases. We do not reject the latter approach and we acknowledge its importance, but we show that there are other valid ways for the acquisition of knowledge. A case study might be regarded as a literary genre with many different applications. In fact, case studies are used in a variety of fields of learning, such as anthropology, psychology, education, medicine, law, business management, political science, and many others. The use each of these fields makes of case studies also varies, as will be seen below. Because of these different uses in different areas, definitions of what a case study is also vary considerably. A case study may be considered "a research method", "a methodological approach", "a research design", "a monographic approach", and so on. In most treatments of research involving cases, however, a single definition is given of a case study, which is the one the author of the text prefers and adopts for his/her work. In the words of Lincoln and Guba (1985: p. 360). "While the literature is replete with references to case studies and with examples of case study reports, there seems to be little agreement about what a case study is." For our purposes, we might define a case study as a detailed description of a management situation. Polanyi ending cover letter sample, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. New York: Harper & Row. [ Links  ] Penrose, E.T. (1960). The growth of the firm - a case study: the Hercules powder company. Business History Review, 34(1), 1-23. [ Links  ] Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Links  ] Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage. [ Links  ] Let us have a look at how the authors surveyed by Gibbert and Ruigrok (2010) dealt with the four criteria of case study rigor. They suggested following rules which are acceptable to reviewers and publishers. For the case study to have internal validity, the researcher must develop an argument that has a consistent causal construction (Siggelkow, 2007; Yin, 2009). To achieve this, one must formulate a clear research framework (with emphasis on relationships between variables and outcomes), analyze patterns and make the triangulation of data - using different sources of information for the same data (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Gibbert, Ruigrok, & Wicki, 2008; Yin, 2009). Kennedy, M. (1979). Generalizing from single case studies. Evaluation Review, 3(4), 661-679. [ Links  ] Different epistemological postures suggest adhesion to different research paradigms, therefore irreconcilable philosophical positions. We prefer to adopt a different view of the dispute. If we look at the literature we reviewed in this essay, we see that another feature of a (social) phenomenon seems to dictate what method will be used to study it: the use to be made of the study. The normal science, positivist, nomothetic approach tends to be used when a general guidance is needed, such as "profitability increases with market share". This will be useful in drawing the manager's attention to a relationship that is very relevant but it will not explain the cause of this relationship. The post-modern, constructivist, idiographic approach tends to be used when the manager wants to understand a rare event, such as an organizational crisis or oddity, an example being a large market share with low profitability. An investigator can make no statements about transferability for his or her findings based solely on data from the studied context alone. At best the investigator can supply only that information about the studied site that may make possible a judgment of transferability to some other site; the final judgment on that matter is, however, vested in the person seeking to make the transfer, who must be in possession of similar data for the receiving context (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 217). This transfer of findings from one case to another case is common in the realm of practice. In the legal field, for example, the study of a single-case, in countries that adopt the common law legal system what are good sociology research topics, is a good example of generalizing from a specific case. In these situations, the decision of whether the characteristics of the previous case can be applied to the case being tried is up to the judge. He is the one who reads the case and decides whether it can be applied to his/her case (be "generalized") or not. According to the legal tradition, the judge's decision is guided primarily by four attributes: i) whether the material facts of the two cases are similar, ii) whether the decision taken in the previous case would still be fair considering possible changes in context, iii) reasons for a particular decision and iv) the level of generalization upon which the decision was made (Kennedy, 1979). Kennedy also points out that, while many researchers are not accustomed to the idea of leaving generalization to the reader of the case study, this is common practice, particularly in the legal and clinical fields. Reliability refers to the criterion that research must be such that if other researchers choose to follow the same research procedures, they can achieve the same insights as the initial researcher ( Denzin & Lincoln, 2000 ). For this to be possible, it is important for the researcher to ensure transparency of the research procedures in order to allow replication by other researchers (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). In this sense, well-described research procedures and protocols are essential parts (Gibbert, Ruigrok give the plural form of thesis, & Wicki, 2008). It is therefore important to stress the need for detail and depth in the fieldwork (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson. [ Links  ] Behaviorism is an approach to the study of psychology that emphasizes the study of observable behavior under strictly controlled conditions. The behaviorism of B. F. Skinner is called the experimental analysis of behavior. Applied behavior analysis seeks to apply principles derived from an experimental analysis of behavior to socially relevant problems. The major methodology of this approach is the single-case experiment, or N = 1 design. Although there are many kinds of N = 1 designs, the most common are the ABAB design and the multiple-baseline design. In order to see the differences between a case study and a single case study, we need to first understand what these two designs are and what is involved in them. References: Mcleod, S. A. (2008). Simply Psychology;. Retrieved 3 February 2012, from http://www.simplypsychology.org/case-study.html As you can see, there are a number of obvious differences between a case study and single case design. For one, a case study focuses on one individual whereas single case design studies usually focus on a number of people. For two, case studies look at the history of a person, whereas single-subject design looks at the effects of treatment in one person and then compares it to others. However, the most important thing to be mentioned is that single-subject designs improve on case studies and therefore they are, in my opinion, a more extensive source of knowledge.
0 Kommentarer
Lämna ett svar. |