The Multiple Case Study Design

Methodology and Application for Management Education

Daphne Halkias, Michael Neubert, Paul W. Thurman, Nicholas Harkiolakis

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2022
• ISBN:
  9781000585674
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Commerce
• Subtopic: R&D

Most organizations today operate in volatile economic and social environments and qualitative research plays an essential role in investigating leadership and management problems. This unique volume offers novice and experienced researchers a brief, student-centric research methods text specifically devoted to the multiple case study design.

The multiple case study design is a valuable qualitative research tool in studying the links between the personal, social, behavioral, psychological, organizational, cultural, and environmental factors that guide organizational and leadership development. Case study research is essential for the in-depth study of participants' perspectives on the phenomenon within its natural context. Rigorously designed management and leadership case studies in the extant literature have a central focus on individual managers' and leaders' stories and their perceptions of the broader forces operating within and outside their organizations.

This is a comprehensive methodology book exploring the multiple case study design with step-by-step and easily accessible guidelines on the topic, making it especially valuable to researchers, academics, and students in the areas of business, management, and leadership.

1A Refresher on the Philosophical Foundations of Academic Research

DOI: 10.4324/9781003244936-1

The origin of the word research can be traced to the French recherché (to seek out) as a composite, suggesting a repeated activity (re) of searching (cherché). Going even further, we arrive at its Latin root in the form of circare (to wander around) and eventually to circle. This wandering around in some cyclical fashion is intuitive, as we will see later on, since it accurately reflects the process we follow in modern research. The only exception is that the circles are getting deeper and deeper into what the “real” world reveals to us. Noticing the quotes around the word “real” might have revealed the direction we will follow here in challenging what “real” means and accepting how it affects the process we follow when we investigate a research topic.

Concerns about the nature of reality are vital in deciding about the nature of truth and the ways to search for it. This brings us to the realm of philosophy or, more specifically, its branch of metaphysics, where we deal with questions of existence. Explaining the world and understanding its function (to the extent possible) allow us to accept what is real and make sense of it. Our perception of the metaphysical worldview is the cause of our behavior and for moving on in life. Questions about the origin of the universe belong to the branch of metaphysics called cosmology, while questions about the nature of reality and the state of being are the concern of the branch of metaphysics called ontology. The latter is essential to the way we approach and conduct research as it provides a foundation for describing what exists and the truth about the objects of research.

In addition to the issues about the reality that research needs to address based on our ontological stance, there are epistemological assumptions that guide our approach to learning. These address issues about what knowledge is—what we can know and how we learn. These questions, of course, are based on the assumption that knowledge about the world can be acquired in an “objective”/real way, connecting in this way with ontology. As we will soon see, the interplay between epistemology and ontology is reflected in the different research traditions adopted and guide past and present research efforts as they determine the theory and methods utilized in conducting research.

The ontological and epistemological stances we adopt are considered paradigms and reflect the researcher’s understanding of the nature of existence from first principles beyond “logical” debate. As paradigms, they are accepted as self-sufficient logical constructs (dogmas in a way) that are beyond the scrutiny of proof or doubt. Selecting one is more of an intuitive leap of faith than an “objective” process of logical and empirical conclusions. Both ontology and epistemology are tightly related to what can be called the “theory of truth.” This is an expression of how arguments connect the various concepts we adopt in research and the conditions that make these arguments true or false depending on the ontological and epistemological posture we adopt. In that respect, arguments can represent concepts, intentions, conditions, correlations, and causations that we accept as true or false with a certain degree of confidence.

Typical theories of truth include the instrumentalist, coherence, and correspondence theories. The last reflects the classical representations that Plato and Aristotle adopted where something is true when it “reflects” reality. This posture can be heavily challenged in the world of social sciences since individuals’ perceptions vary and can suggest different views of reality, making it impossible to have a universal agreement on social “facts.” Such perceptions can influence how beliefs fit together (cohere) in producing an explanation of the phenomenon we are investigating. This is also the basic posture of coherence theory, which postulates that truth is interpretation-oriented and constructed in social settings.

The instrumentalist view of truth emphasizes interrelations between truth and action and connects the positive outcomes of an action to the truth behind the intention that led to that action. This is more of a results-oriented perception of truth and the basis of the pragmatist epistemology, as we will see later on. In terms of supporting theories, research can be descriptive, like when we make factual claims of what leaders and organizations do, instrumental, like when we study the impact and influence of behavior, and normative, when we try to provide evidence that supports a particular direction. For each one of these “categories” of research, ontology and epistemology are there to provide philosophical grounds and guidance.

Before delving into the philosophical foundations of academic research, novice researchers must often confuse the terms method and methodology. The methodology commonly refers to the frame of reference on which the inquiry method is based and it is typically subjected to a specific set of guiding principles and justifies using a particular research method. Guba and Lincoln (1989) define methodology as the ‘overall strategy for resolving the complete set of choices and options available to the inquirer’ (p. 183). A research method describes the most suitable way to collect and analyze data within the study context. A case study as a method examines particular “cases,” including individuals and events. Using multiple data sources and collection methods, a case study explores and critiques a phenomenon in context (i.e., bound). It is possible that, as a conceptual definition, qualitative case studies could potentially be both a method and a methodology, depending on the underpinning philosophy.

Ontology

Of particular research interest is ontology, the branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being and existence or, in simplified terms, what reality is. Although it is not clear what reality is and how it relates to other things, one can always resolve to degrees of belief that ensure commitment to answers and, by extension, acceptance of a particular theory of the world. In this way, an ontological stance will provide an acceptable dogma of how the world is built and, more specifically, concerning social sciences, which we are interested in here, the nature of the social phenomenon under investigation.

Realism. Realism’s premise is that the world exists regardless of who observes it. In our case, this means that the universe existed before us and will continue to exist after we are gone (not just as individuals but also as a species). The philosophical positions of realism have been quite controversial as they can be accepted or rejected in parts according to one’s focus. Many variations of realism have been developed from various philosophical schools to address deviations from the generic realist path. Among them, critical realism, idealism, and internal realism hold prominent positions. The first two have been going at each other for some time now as rivals of realism. Critical realists insist on separating social and physical objects because social structures cannot exist in isolation and are derivatives of the activities they govern and their agents’ perceptions. In turn, these structures tend to influence the perceptions of their agents, creating in this sense a closed system between agents and their social construct. Idealists critique the positions of critical realists by suggesting their interpretations and subject of inquiry fall into metaphysics as they construct imaginary entities that further impose an ideology that, like most ideologies, can be oppressive and exploitable.

Relativism. Relativism takes an opposite stance to realism by assuming that what we perceive as reality is nothing more than the product of conventions and frameworks of assessment that we have popularized and agreed as representing the truth. In that sense, truth is a human fabrication, and no one assessment of human conduct is more valid than another. Understanding is context- and location-specific, and rationality, among others, is the subject of research rather than an undisputed conceptual resource for researchers. Relativists view reality as time-dependent. Something that was considered accurate at some time could easily be proven false at a later time when experience and resources reveal another aspect of the phenomenon or situation under investigation. Research provides revelations of reality and discourses help develop practices and representations that help us experience and make sense of the world.

Epistemology. The etymology of the word epistemology suggests the discourse about the formal observation and acquisition of knowledge. As sources of knowledge, we consider “reliable” ones like testimonies, memory, reason, perception, and introspection and exclude volatile forms like desires, emotions, prejudice, and biases. Perception through our five senses is the primary entry point of information into the mind where it can be retained in memory for further processing through reason. Testimony is an indirect form of knowledge after which we rely on someone else to provide credible information about someone or something else. Finally, introspection, as a unique capacity of humans to inspect their thinking, can supplement reason in making decisions about the nature of evidence and truth.

For the academic research that we are interested in here, epistemology is vital in defining our approach to data collection and analysis and interpreting findings in search of the underlining truth of the phenomenon we are studying. A more practical perspective that is also of interest to research concerns creating and disseminating knowledge in a domain of study. Again, as we did with the case of ontology, we will discuss here the primary schools of thought that guide social sciences research, like positivism and constructivism. In positivism, as we will see next, the social world exists in reality, and we try to accurately represent it as knowledge, while in constructivism, learning takes place in a social context as we confirm our knowledge with others.

Positivism. Positivism is based on the idea that the social world exists externally and can be studied and represented accurately by human knowledge only when validated empirically. This aligns well with the realist perspective and the corresponding theory of truth, but it should not be seen as one-to-one correspondence. Social entities and their interactions are seen as observables that can be expressed through appropriate parameters and variables. These can be studied and empirically tested to reveal the true nature of social phenomena. For example, organizational structure and culture exist and can be studied to provide proof of their influence on organizational performance.

Constructivism. Constructivism is applied in response to the “absolute” nature of learning through observation of and experimentation with measurable entities to address the subjective nature of social experience and interaction. In the constructivist paradigm, it is argued that our perception of the world is a social construct formed by commonly agreed beliefs among people and that these constructs should be investigated by research. We assume here that the internal beliefs of individuals shape their perceptions of their external reality to the extent that they behave as if their constructed reality is the actual reality, making the argument about an objective reality unimportant.

The way people communicate and express their beliefs and positions and understand what drives them to interact the way they do takes here the place of a cause-and-effect relationship that, in other approaches, forms the basis for understanding and explaining phenomena. Social interactions are not a direct response to external stimuli but develop an agreed-upon meaning before materializing a reaction. The grounds upon which constructivism is developed align it almost perfectly with relativism. A significant challenge with constructivism regarding research is that an external perspective is required when dealing with external events, like how the market behaves or how an organization interacts with its stakeholders. The issue is no longer how we perceive reality but rather what the reality of external stakeholders is. Another challenge we face is the inability to compare views of individuals as they are subjectively formed and do not represent accurate/realistic reflections of their outside world.

To address many of the challenges constructivists face concerning quality (like validity in positivism), compliance with a set of criteria is sought in constructivism-based research. Prominent among them is authenticity, whereby the researchers need to understand the issue under investigation. Additionally, they need to demonstrate their impartiality in interpreting findings as expert methodologists. In that direction, identifying correct operational measures for the concepts being studied will support construct validity. Internal and external validity are also of concern as they aim to establish causal relationships and ensure the transferability of findings.

2Research MethodologiesThe Basics

DOI: 10.4324/9781003244936-2

Armed with our beliefs about the nature of reality and learning, we adopt the process we will follow in collecting information and data about the phenomenon we will study. As a field of study, methodology concerns the systematic study and analysis of the methods used for observations and concluding. In short, the methodology is the philosophy of methods and encompasses the rules for reaching valid conclusions (epistemology) and the domains/“objects” (ontology) of investigation that form an observable phenomenon. Its philosophical roots suggest that it is expressed as an attitude toward inquiry and learning grounded in our perception of reality and forms our behavior’s guiding principles.

For example, a positivist perspective would assume that burnout exists in reality and formulate tests using large samples to measure it and confirm its existence while providing details of the various variables and parameters influencing its expression. In this way, a cause-and-effect relationship will be established between the individual influencers/variables. One could find control variables like the environment (suppressive and authoritarian) and independent variables (we will talk about them soon) like genetic predisposition. The focus during data collection and analysis is more on observations of the phenomenon “What,” “When,” “Where,” and “Who” and the “How” and “Why” as generalizations during the interpretation and conclusions phase.

On the other side of positivism, we can consider a constructivist perspective that would focus on aspects of the environment individuals consider as contributing to burnout and how they manage themselves in such situations. Researchers would arrange for interviews with those who have experienced burnout. By recording the individuals’ stories and appropriate probing about the phenomenon, the researcher develops themes that persist across individuals and explain the phenomenon’s surfaces. The focus here is more on the “How” and “Why” and leaves the identification of commonalities “What,” “When,” “Where,” and “Who” for the interpretation and conclusions. In a way, it is like going from effect to cause, while in positivism, the perspective will move from cause to effect. A point of interest here is that the researcher does not define the phenomenon and its characteristics but leaves it up to the research subjects.

It is worth pointing out what a phenomenon is, as we frequently refer to it as the core element or the essence of research. By its etymology, a phenomenon is something that appears, meaning it is observed. In our case, we will also add the element of repeated appearance; otherwise, it might not deserve the effort one can devote to its study. Value from research comes from the understanding we gain about something that we can later use to make predictions and optimally deal with similar situations. Understanding comes from representing the complexity of what we observe with abstract representations (variables, constructs, parameters), their classification according to their similarities and proximity to other abstractions, and how they interconnect and react to each other.

If we can identify the various elements of the phenomenon with precision and detail enough to measure them as specific quantities, we can say that our data are quantitative, and thus the methodology we will follow is a quantitative one. Such quantities include age, gender, education level, etc. On the other hand, our observations concern constructs that cannot accurately be represented as quantities. We can say that our research requires a qualitative methodology. Such constructs include feelings, beliefs, perceptions, etc. If both quantitative and qualitative elements are required to describe and explain a phenomenon accurately, then a combination of methods (mixed methods) would be the recommended path.

Quantitative Methodologies

The quantitative method and analysis are based on meaning derived from numerical form data like scale scores, ratings, durations, counts, etc. This is in contrast to qualitative methods, where meaning is derived from narratives. The quantitative research numbers can come directly from observation or indirectly by converting collected information into a numerical form (like a Likert scale, which we will see later). While this definition of quantitative research covers the basics of what it is, a more in-depth representation defines quantitative methodologies as an attempt to measure (positivist stance mainly) an objective reality (realist stance mainly). We assume that the phenomenon under study is natural (not a social construct) and can be represented (knowable) by estimating parameters and measuring meaningf...