Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Organizational Research Methods
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1094428108319905v1
12/3/567    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Piekkari, R.
Right arrow Articles by Paavilainen, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Article

The Case Study as Disciplinary Convention: Evidence From International Business Journals

Rebecca Piekkari*, Catherine Welch, and Eriikka Paavilainen

Helsinki School of Economics

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: rebecca.piekkari{at}hse.fi.


   Abstract
This article explores case study practices within a specific management discipline, that of international business. The authors contrast the case study debate in the general methodological literature to how this method is practiced within this particular scientific community. They review 135 case study–based articles published in four international business journals from 1995 to 2005 and 22 from 1975 to 1994, finding the disciplinary convention in these journals to be exploratory, interview-based multiple case studies, drawing on positivistic assumptions and cross-sectional designs. Alternative perspectives on the case study that the authors identify in the methodological literature have had little impact on this field. Even the most commonly cited methodological literature is not consistently followed. Given these limitations of the disciplinary convention, the authors argue for greater methodological pluralism in conducting case studies and provide suggestions for researchers seeking to adopt alternative case study traditions.

First published on June 9, 2008, doi:10.1177/1094428108319905

Organizational Research Methods 2009;12:567.

A more recent version of this article appeared on July 1, 2009


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?