is an attractive research approach, and some
guidelines for evaluating this type of research.
Background
Several pieces of the process of building the-
ory from case study research have appeared in
the literature. One is the work on grounded the-
ory building by Glaser and Strauss
(1967) and,
more recently, Strauss (1987). These authors
have detailed their comparative method for de-
veloping grounded theory. The method relies on
continuous comparison of data and theory be-
ginning with data collection.
It
emphasizes both
the emergence of theoretical categories solely
from evidence and an incremental approach to
case selection and data gathering.
More recently, Yin (1981, 1984) has described
the design of case study research. He has de-
fined the case study as
a
research strategy, de-
veloped
a
typology of case study designs, and
described the replication logic which is essential
to multiple case analysis. His approach also
stresses bringing the concerns of validity and
reliability in experimental research design to the
design of case study research.
Miles and Huberman (1984) have outlined
specific techniques for analyzing qualitative
data. Their ideas include
a
variety of devices
such as tabular displays and graphs to manage
and present qualitative data, without destroying
the meaning of the data through intensive cod-
ing.
A number of active researchers also have un-
dertaken their own variations and additions to
the earlier methodological work
(e.g., Gersick,
1988; Leonard-Barton,
1988; Harris
&
Sutton,
1986). Many of these authors acknowledge
a
debt to previous work, but they have also devel-
oped their own "homegrown" techniques for
building theory from cases. For example, Sutton
and
Callahan (1987) pioneered
a
clever use of
a
resident devil's advocate, the Warwick group
(Pettigrew, 1988) added triangulation of investi-
gators, and my colleague and
I
(Bourgeois
&
Eisenhardt, 1988) developed cross-case analysis
techniques.
Finally, the work of others such as Van
Maa-
nen (1988) on ethnography, Jick (1979) on trian-
gulation of data types, and Mintzberg (1979) on
direct research has provided additional pieces
for
a
framework of building theory from case
study research.
As
a
result, many pieces of the theory-
building process are evident in the literature.
Nevertheless,
at
the same time, there is substan-
tial confusion about how to combine them,
when to conduct this type of study, and how to
evaluate it.
The Case Study Approach
The case study is
a
research strategy which
focuses on understanding the dynamics present
within single settings. Examples of case study
research include Selznick's (1949) description of
TVA, Allison's (197
1)
study of the Cuban missile
crisis, and Pettigrew's
(1
973) research on deci-
sion making
at
a
British retailer. Case studies
can involve either single or multiple cases, and
numerous levels of analysis
(Yin, 1984). For ex-
ample, Harris and Sutton (1986) studied 8 dying
organizations, Bettenhausen and Murnighan
(1986) focused on the emergence of norms in 19
laboratory groups, and Leonard-Barton (1988)
tracked the progress of 10 innovation projects.
Moreover, case studies can employ an embed-
ded design, that is, multiple levels of analysis
within
a
single study (Yin, 1984). For example,
the Warwick study of competitiveness and stra-
tegic change within major
U.K.
corporations is
conducted
at
two levels of analysis: industry and
firm (Pettigrew, 1988), and the Mintzberg and
Waters (1982) study of Steinberg's grocery em-
pire examines multiple strategic changes within
a
single firm.
Case studies typically combine data collection
methods such as archives, interviews, question-
naires, and observations. The evidence may be
qualitative
(e.g., words), quantitative (e.g.,
评论0