Entering a Dialogue: Positioning Case Study Findings towards Theory
| Author | Christina Hoon,Hans‐Gerd Ridder,Alina McCandless Baluch |
| Published date | 01 April 2014 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12000 |
| Date | 01 April 2014 |
Methodology Corner
Entering a Dialogue: Positioning Case
Study Findings towards Theory
Hans-Gerd Ridder, Christina Hoon and Alina McCandless Baluch1
Leibniz Universität Hannover, Faculty of Economics and Management, Institute of HRM, Koenigsworther
Platz 1, 30167 Hannover, Germany, and 1School of Management, University of St Andrews, Gateway
Building, North Haugh, St Andrews KY16 9RJ, UK
Corresponding author email: hoon@pua.uni-hannover.de
Demonstrating a theoretical contribution is seen as a central challenge in case study
research; however, the literature provides little guidance on the crucial step of positioning
the study’s theoretical claims in relationship to prior theory. This paper addresses the
question of how to enter into a dialogue with extant theory in theory building case study
research in the field of management. We present three ways of positioning to demon-
strate a theoretical contribution, illustrating each with examples from recent case studies
drawing on the dynamic capabilities approach. By distinguishing between seeking com-
plementarities and dissimilarities in theory building, we add to this discussion and shed
light on the benefits of entering a synergistic, antagonistic and pluralistic dialogue for
making a significant theoretical contribution. Methodologically, we more fully specify
how case study researchers can elaborate upon their theoretical claims in relation to
prior theory.
In the field of management research, there is an
increasing prevalence of theory building case
study research that has provided the field with
ground-breaking insights that advance knowledge
(Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). Case studies
stretch from interpretivist and critical realist alter-
natives with the study of the particular and situ-
ational knowledge, respectively, to positivist
approaches to the case study, all of which can be
useful for theorizing (Piekkari, Welch and Paavi-
lainen, 2009). The strength of theory building case
studies is especially viewed in their contribution to
theory by identifying and refining constructs and
their relationships or developing and confirming
propositions (e.g. Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt
and Graebner, 2007; Flyvbjerg, 2004; Siggelkow,
2007; Yin, 2009). To come from rich case study
data to a significant contribution, Eisenhardt
(1989) advocates enfolding literature in terms of
the ‘comparison of the emergent concepts, theory,
or hypotheses with the extant literature’ (Eisen-
hardt, 1989, p. 544).
Although the notion of comparison is empha-
sized as a compelling source of theoretical insight,
one of the shortcomings in the extant literature
concerns how to position one’s work in relation to
existing theories when the case is finally turned
into a ‘product’ (Dubois and Gadde, 2002; Locke,
Golden-Biddle and Feldman, 2008). Instead,
scholars have extensively addressed the use of a
relevant theoretical perspective at the outset of
theory building research (e.g. Gioia and Pitre,
1990; Yin, 2009). However, drawing upon theory
is also crucial in the end of the research process
when researchers not only acknowledge the
stream of logic they contribute to, but also need to
distinguish their work from extant theory and
explicate their contribution (Corley and Gioia,
2011; Ridder, Hoon and McCandless, 2009;
Sutton and Staw, 1995). Therefore, in this paper
we focus on the point within the case study
process where researchers are faced with situating
their own theoretical claims vis-à-vis the broader
theoretical field. Here, the researcher aims to sig-
bs_bs_banner
British Journal of Management, Vol. 25, 373–387 (2014)
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12000
© 2012 The Author(s)
British Journal of Management © 2012 British Academy of Management. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
To continue reading
Request your trial