Theory-Building Case Studies

Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Andrej Školkay

The article discusses the Gorilla case, an officially still-contested partial state capture by a single local oligarchic group, in line with the (partial) Elite Cartels corruption pattern in Slovakia. Due to the manner in which evidence, although considered unofficial, was made available, this case illustrates secret political and business processes during partial state capture. The initial absence of the case in public, political, and academic discourses, suggests that state capture can be present and operate undetected for a long time. This study also shows that in-depth analysis of the Gorilla case was avoided by both domestic and international political scientists, despite its paramount practical and theoretical importance. This, in turn, reflects a methodological capture of political science. Consequently, this article disentangles the complexities of the Gorilla case and lays down the foundation for further studies. Specifically, it highlights the need for more careful research, terminological precision in both theory-building and empirical findings on state and media capture based on case studies, as well as re-assessment of the methodology of political sciences used in these research areas.


1998 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 346
Author(s):  
Alan C. Lamborn ◽  
Barbara Rearden Farnham ◽  
Patrick J. Haney

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 763-785 ◽  
Author(s):  
Éric Montpetit ◽  
Christine Rothmayr Allison ◽  
Isabelle Engeli

AbstractConcerned by the proliferation of idiosyncratic prescriptive case studies in the nascent subfield of policy studies, Richard Simeon, in his seminal 1976 article, asked scholars to produce more comparative policy research that aimed at explaining general events and contributing to theory building. The extent to which Simeon's vision materialized remains debated. With a view to informing this debate, we conducted a systematic content analysis of the articles published in five major generalist public policy journals from 1980 to 2015. The analysis reveals that Canadian policy scholars took a comparative turn, publishing more territorial, sector and time comparisons than in the past. We also found evidence that theoretical knowledge accumulation is more important today for Canadian authors than it was when Simeon wrote his article.


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Hanage ◽  
Pekka Stenholm ◽  
Jonathan M. Scott ◽  
Mark A.P. Davies

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to respond to the call by McMullen and Dimov (2013) for a clearer understanding of entrepreneurial journeys by investigating the entrepreneurial capitals and micro-processes of seven young early stage entrepreneurs who all exited their businesses within 3 years of start-up.Design/methodology/approachThe authors analysed empirical data from concurrent in-depth interviews which generated rich longitudinal case studies. Theory-building then led to a proposed “Longitudinal Dynamic Process Framework” of entrepreneurial goals, processes and capitals.FindingsThe framework builds on prior studies by integrating entrepreneurial processes and decisions into two feedback loops based on continuous review and learning. It thereby enhances understanding of the dynamics of new business development and unfolds the early stage ventures entrepreneurs' business exits.Research limitations/implicationsThe findings are based on a small purposive sample. However, the main implication for research and theory is showing how the entrepreneurial capitals are dynamic and influenced by entrepreneurs' environment, and also separating entrepreneurs' personal issues from their business issues.Practical implicationsThe findings challenge some assumptions of policymakers and offer new insights for practitioners and early stage entrepreneurs. These include having more realistic case-studies of the entrepreneurial journey, recognizing the need to be agile and tenacious to cope with challenges, understanding how capitals can interact in complementary ways and that entrepreneurial processes can be used to leverage them at appropriate stages of the start-ups.Originality/valueThe concurrent longitudinal analysis and theory-building complements extant cross-sectional studies by identifying and analysing the detailed processes of actual business start-ups and exits. The proposed framework thereby adds coherence to earlier studies and helps to explain early stage entrepreneurial development, transformation of capitals and business exit.


Author(s):  
Eric Volmar ◽  
Kathleen M. Eisenhardt

Theory building from case studies is a research strategy that combines grounded theory building with case studies. Its purpose is to develop novel, accurate, parsimonious, and robust theory that emerges from and is grounded in data. Case research is well-suited to address “big picture” theoretical gaps and dilemmas, particularly when existing theory is inadequate. Further, this research strategy is particularly useful for answering questions of “how” through its deep and longitudinal immersion in a focal phenomenon. The process of conducting case study research includes a thorough literature review to identify an appropriate and compelling research question, a rigorous study design that involves artful theoretical sampling, rich and complete data collection from multiple sources, and a creative yet systematic grounded theory building process to analyze the cases and build emergent theory about significant phenomena. Rigorous theory building case research is fundamentally centered on strong emergent theory with precise theoretical logic and robust grounding in empirical data. Not surprisingly then, theory building case research is disproportionately represented among the most highly cited and award-winning research.


1989 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher H. Achen ◽  
Duncan Snidal

Several recent books have argued that comparative case studies of crises demonstrate the failure of rational-deterrence theory; they have offered certain empirical generalizations as substitutes. This paper shows that such contentions are unwarranted. First, the empirical generalizations are impressive as historical insights, but they do not meet the standards for theory set out by the most sophisticated case-study analysts themselves. Second, the “tests” of rational deterrence used in the case studies violate standard principles of inference, and the ensuing procedures are so biased as to be useless. Rational deterrence, then, is a more successful theory than portrayed in this literature, and it remains the only intellectually powerful alternative available.Case studies are essential to theory building: more efficiently than any other methods, they find suitable variables, suggest middle-range generalizations for theory to explain, and provide the prior knowledge that statistical tests require. Their loose constraints on admissible propositions and suitable evidence are appropriate and even necessary for these tasks. These same characteristics, however, inevitably undermine all attempts to construe case-study generalizations as bodies of theory or tests of hypotheses.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document