Building Theories From Case Study Research Kathleen M .
Building Theories from Case Study ResearchKathleen M. EisenhardtThe Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4. (Oct., 1989), pp. 532-550.Stable URL:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici O%3B2-RThe Academy of Management Review is currently published by Academy of Management.Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/aom.html.Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.http://www.jstor.orgTue Jul 31 21:07:56 2007
FAcademy ofManagement Review, 1989, Vol 14, No 4, 532-550Building Theories from CaseStudy ResearchKATHLEEN M. EISENHARDTStanford UniversityThis paper describes the process of inducting theory using case studies-from specifying the research questions to reaching closure.Some features of the process, such a s problem definition a n d construct validation, a r e similar to hypothesis-testing research. Others,such as within-case analysis a n d replication logic, a r e unique to theinductive, case-oriented process. Overall, the process described hereis highly iterative a n d tightly linked to data. This research approach isespecially appropriate in new topic areas. The resultant theory isoften novel, testable, a n d empirically valid. Finally, framebreakinginsights, the tests of good theory fe.g.,parsimony, logical coherence),a n d convincing grounding in the evidence a r e the key criteria forevaluating this type of research.Development of theory is a central activity inorganizational research. Traditionally, authorshave developed theory by combining observations from previous literature, common sense,a n d experience. However, the tie to actual datahas often been tenuous (Perrow, 1986; Pfeffer,1982).Yet, a s Glaser a n d Strauss (1967)argue, itis the intimate connection with empirical realitythat permits the development of a testable, relevant, a n d valid theory.This paper describes building theories fromcase studies. Several aspects of this process arediscussed in the literature. For example, Glasera n d Strauss ( 1 967) detailed a comparativemethod for developing grounded theory, Yin(1981, 1984) described the design of case studyresearch, a n d Miles a n d Huberman (1984)codified a series of procedures for analyzing qualitative data. However, confusion surrounds thedistinctions among qualitative data, inductivelogic, a n d case study research. Also, there is alack of clarity about the process of actuallybuilding theory from cases, especially regarding the central inductive process a n d the role ofliterature. Glaser a n d Strauss (1967) a n d morerecently Strauss (1987) have outlined pieces ofthe process, but theirs is a prescribed formula,a n d new ideas have emerged from methodologists (e.g., Yin, 1984; Miles & Huberman, 1984)a n d researchers conducting this type of research (e.g., Gersick, 1988; Harris & Sutton,1986; Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988). Also, it appears that no one has explicitly examined whenthis theory-building approach is likely to b efruitful a n d what its strengths a n d weaknessesmay be.This paper attempts to make two contributionsto the literature. The first is a roadmap for building theories from case study research. Thisroadmap synthesizes previous work on qualitative methods (e.g., Miles & Huberman, 1984),thedesign of case study research (e.g., Yin, 1981,
1984),and grounded theory building (e.g., Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and extends that work inareas such a s a priori specification of constructs,triangulation of multiple investigators, withincase a n d cross-case analyses, and the role ofexisting literature. The result is a more nearlycomplete roadmap for executing this type of re-search than has existed in the past. This framework is summarized in Table 1.The second contribution is positioning theorybuilding from case studies into the larger contextof social science research. For example, the paper explores strengths and weaknesses of theorybuilding from case studies, situations in which itTable 1Process of Building Theory from Case Study ResearchStepGettlng StartedSelecting CasesActivityDefinition of research questionPosslbly a prlorl constructsNelther theory nor hypothesesSpecified populationTheoretical, not random, samplingCraftlng Instrumentsand ProtocolsMultiple data collection methodsQualitative and quantitative data combinedMultiple lnvestlgatorsEntering the FleldOverlap data collection and analysis,Including field notesFlexible and opportunistic data collectionmethodsAnaiyzlng DataWithln-case analyslsCross-case pattern search using divergenttechniquesShaping HypothesesEnfolding LiteratureIterative tabulation of evldence for eachconstructRepllcatlon, not sampling, loglc acrosscasesSearch evldence for "why" behindrelationshipsComparison with conflicting literatureComparison with similar literatureReachlng ClosureTheoretical saturation when possibleReasonFocuses effortsProvldes better grounding of constructmeasuresRetains theoretical flexibilityConstrains extraneous varlation andsharpens external validltyFocuses efforts on theoretically usefulcases-i.e., those that replicate or extendtheory by filllng conceptual categoriesStrengthens grounding of theory bytriangulation of evldenceSynerglstlc vlew of evldenceFosters divergent perspectives andstrengthens groundingSpeeds analyses and reveals helpfuladjustments to data collectionAllows investigators to take advantage ofemergent themes and unique casefeaturesGains famlllarlty with data and preliminarytheory generationForces investigators to look beyond lnitlalimpressions and see evidence thrumultiple lensesSharpens construct definition, validity, andmeasurabilityConfirms, extends, and sharpens theoryBullds Internal valldityBuilds internal valldity, raises theoreticallevel, and sharpens construct definitionsSharpens generallzability, improvesconstruct definition, and ralses theoreticallevelEnds process when marglnal Improvementbecomes small
is a n attractive research approach, a n d someguidelines for evaluating this type of research.BackgroundSeveral pieces of the process of building theory from case study research have appeared inthe literature. One is the work on grounded theory building by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and,more recently, Strauss (1987). These authorshave detailed their comparative method for developing grounded theory. The method relies oncontinuous comparison of data a n d theory beginning with data collection. It emphasizes boththe emergence of theoretical categories solelyfrom evidence and a n incremental approach tocase selection and data gathering.More recently, Yin (1981, 1984) has describedthe design of case study research. He has defined the case study a s a research strategy, developed a typology of case study designs, a n ddescribed the replication logic which is essentialto multiple case analysis. His approach alsostresses bringing the concerns of validity a n dreliability in experimental research design to thedesign of case study research.Miles a n d Huberman (1984) have outlinedspecific techniques for analyzing qualitativedata. Their ideas include a variety of devicessuch a s tabular displays and graphs to managea n d present qualitative data, without destroyingthe meaning of the data through intensive coding.A number of active researchers also have undertaken their own variations a n d additions tothe earlier methodological work (e.g., Gersick,1988; Leonard-Barton, 1988; Harris & Sutton,1986). Many of these authors acknowledge adebt to previous work, but they have also developed their own "homegrown" techniques forbuilding theory from cases. For example, Suttonand Callahan (1987)pioneered a clever use of aresident devil's advocate, the Warwick group(Pettigrew, 1988) added triangulation of investigators, a n d my colleague and I (Bourgeois &Eisenhardt, 1988)developed cross-case analysistechniques.Finally, the work of others such a s Van Maanen (1988) on ethnography, Jick (1979) on triangulation of data types, a n d Mintzberg (1979) ondirect research has provided additional piecesfor a framework of building theory from casestudy research.As a result, many pieces of the theorybuilding process are evident in the literature.Nevertheless, at the same time, there is substantial confusion about how to combine them,when to conduct this type of study, a n d how toevaluate it.The Case Study ApproachThe case study is a research strategy whichfocuses on understanding the dynamics presentwithin single settings. Examples of case studyresearch include Selznick's (1949) description ofTVA, Allison's (1971) study of the Cuban missilecrisis, a n d Pettigrew's (1973) research on decision making at a British retailer. Case studiescan involve either single or multiple cases, andnumerous levels of analysis (Yin, 1984). For example, Harris and Sutton (1986)studied 8 dyingorganizations, Bettenhausen a n d Murnighan(1986) focused on the emergence of norms in 19laboratory groups, a n d Leonard-Barton (1988)tracked the progress of 10 innovation projects.Moreover, case studies can employ a n embedded design, that is, multiple levels of analysiswithin a single study (Yin, 1984). For example,the Warwick study of competitiveness and strategic change within major U.K.corporations isconducted at two levels of analysis: industry a n dfirm (Pettigrew, 1988), a n d the Mintzberg a n dWaters (1982) study of Steinberg's grocery empire examines multiple strategic changes withina single firm.Case studies typically combine data collectionmethods such a s archives, interviews, questionnaires, and observations. The evidence may bequalitative ( e . g . , words), quantitative ( e . g . ,
numbers), or both. For example, Sutton a n dCallahan (1987) rely exclusively on qualitativedata in their study of bankruptcy in Silicon Valley, Mintzberg and McHugh (1985)use qualitative data supplemented by frequency counts intheir work on the National Film Board of Cana d a , a n d Eisenhardt and Bourgeois (1988)combine quantitative data from questionnaires withqualitative evidence from interviews and observations.Finally, case studies can be used to accomplish various aims: to provide description (Kidder, 1982),test theory (Pinfield, 1986; Anderson,1983), or generate theory (e.g., Gersick, 1988;Harris & Sutton, 1986).The interest here is in thislast aim, theory generation from case study ev-Table 2Recent Examples of lnductive Case Study Research*StudyBurgelman (1983)Descriptionof Cases6 mternal corporate venturesin 1 malorResearchProblemDataSourcesManagement ofnew venturesArchivesIntervlewsSome observationFormulation ofstrategy in a nadhocracyArchivesSome ntervlewsParting ceremonies tionMintzberg &McHugh (1985)1 Natlonal FilmHarris & Sutton( 1986)8 diverse organlzationsBoard of Cana d a , 1939- 1975,wlth 6 perlods8 microcomputerEisenhardt &Bourgeois (1988)firmsStrategic decisionmaking in highvelocity environmentsGersick (1988)Group development in projectteams8 project groupswlth deadlinesLeonard-Barton( 1988)10 technical n n o - Internal technolvationsogy transferPettigrew (1988)1 high performing& 1 low per-forming flrm ineach of 4industriesStrategic change& e observationObservationSome sArchivesSome observationInvestigatorsOutputSingle mvestigatorProcess modellinhng multipleorganizationallevelsStrategy-mahngResearch teamthemes, "grassroots" model ofstrategy formationResearch teamConceptualframeworkabout thefunctions ofparting ceremonies fordisplacedmembersResearch teamMid-range theoryTandem interlinhng power,politics, a n dviewsfirm performanceSingle investigator PunctuatedequilibriumSingle investigatormodel of groupdevelopmentProcess modelResearch teamsIn progressExamples were chosen from recent organizational writlng to provide illustrations of the possible range of theory buildingfrom case studies.
idence. Table 2 summarizes some recent research using theory building from case studies.Building Theory from CaseStudy ResearchGetting StartedAn initial definition of the research question,in at least broad terms, is important in buildingtheory from case studies. Mintzberg (1979, p.585) noted: "No matter how small our sample orwhat our interest, we have always tried to gointo organizations with a well-defined focus-tocollect specific kinds of data systematically." Therationale for defining the research question isthe same a s it is in hypothesis-testing research.Without a research focus, it is easy to becomeoverwhelmed by the volume of data. For example, Pettigrew a n d colleagues (1988) definedtheir research question in terms of strategicchange and competitiveness within large Britishcorporations, a n d Leonard-Barton (1988) focused on technical innovation of feasible technologies. Such definition of a research questionwithin a broad topic permitted these investigators to specify the kind of organization to be approached, and, once there, the kind of data to begathered.A priori specification of constructs can alsohelp to s h a p e the initial design of theorybuilding research. Although this type of specification is not common in theory-building studiesto date, it is valuable because it permits researchers to measure constructs more accurately. If these constructs prove important a s thestudy progresses, then researchers have afirmer empirical grounding for the emergenttheory. For example, in a study of strategic decision making in top management teams, Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (1988) identified severalpotentially important constructs (e.g., conflict,power) from the literature on decision making.These constructs were explicitly measured in theinterview protocol a n d questionnaires. Whenseveral of these constructs did emerge a s relatedto the decision process, there were strong, triangulated measures on which to ground the emergent theory.Although early identification of the researchquestion a n d possible constructs is helpful, it isequally important to recognize that both a r e tentative in this type of research. No construct isguaranteed a place in the resultant theory, nomatter how well it is measured. Also, the research question may shift during the research.At the extreme, some researchers (e.g., Gersick,1988; Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1986) haveconverted theory-testing research into theorybuilding research by taking advantage of serendipitous findings. In these studies, the researchfocus emerged after the data collection had begun. As Bettenhausen a n d Murnighan (1986, p.352) wrote: ". . . we observed the outcomes of a nexperiment on group decision making and coalition formation. Our observations of thegroups indicated that the unique character ofeach of the groups seemed to overwhelm ourother manipulations." These authors proceededto switch their research focus to a theorybuilding study of group norms.Finally and most importantly, theory-buildingresearch is begun a s close a s possible to theideal of no theory under consideration a n d nohypotheses to test. Admittedly, it is impossible toachieve this ideal of a clean theoretical slate.Nonetheless, attempting to approach this idealis important because preordained theoreticalperspectives or propositions may bias and limitthe findings. Thus, investigators should formulate a research problem a n d possibly specifysome potentially important variables, with somereference to extant literature. However, theyshould avoid thinking about specific relationships between variables a n d theories a s mucha s possible, especially at the outset of the process.Selecting CasesSelection of cases is a n important aspect ofbuilding theory from case studies. As in hypoth-
esis-testing research, the concept of a population is crucial, because the population definesthe set of entities from which the research Sample is to be drawn. Also, selection of a n appropriate population controls extraneous variationa n d helps to define the limits for generalizing thefindings.The Warwick study of strategic change andcompetitiveness illustrates these ideas (Pettigrew, 1988). In this study, the researchers selected cases from a population of large Britishcorporations in four market sectors. The selection of four specific markets allowed the researchers to control environmental variation,while the focus on large corporations constrained variation due to size differences amongthe firms. Thus, specification of this populationreduced extraneous variation a n d clarified thedomain of the findings a s large corporations operating in specific types of environments.However, the sampling of cases from the chosen population is unusual when building theoryfrom case studies. Such research relies on theoretical sampling (i.e., cases are chosen for theoretical, not statistical, reasons, Glaser & Strauss,1967).The cases may be chosen to replicate previous cases or extend emergent theory, or theymay be chosen to fill theoretical categories andprovide examples of polar types. While thecases may be chosen randomly, random selection is neither necessary, nor even preferable.As Pettigrew (1988) noted, given the limitednumber of cases which can usually be studied,it makes sense to choose cases such a s extremesituations and polar types in which the processof interest is "transparently observable." Thus,the goal of theoretical sampling is to choosecases which are likely to replicate or extend theemergent theory. In contrast, traditional, withinexperiment hypothesis-testing studies rely onstatistical sampling, in which researchers randomly select the sample from the population. Inthis type of study, the goal of the sampling process is to obtain accurate statistical evidence onthe distributions of variables within the population.Several studies illustrate theoretical Sampling. Harris a n d Sutton (19861, for example,were interested in the parting ceremonies ofdying organizations. In order to build a modelapplicable across organization types, these researchers purposefully selected diverse organizations from a population of dying organizations. They chose eight organizations, fillingeach of four categories: private, dependent; private, independent; public, dependent; a n d public, independent. The sample was not random,but reflected the selection of specific cases to extend the theory to a broad range of organizations. Multiple cases within each category allowed findings to be replicated within categories. Gersick (1988)followed a similar strategy ofdiverse sampling in order to enhance the generalizability of her model of group development. In the Warwick study (Pettigrew, 1988),the investigators also followed a deliberate,theoretical sampling plan. Within each of fourmarkets, they chose polar types: one case ofclearly successful firm performance a n d one unsuccessful case. This sampling plan was designed to build theories of success and failure.Finally
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
series b, 580c. case farm tractor manuals - tractor repair, service and case 530 ck backhoe & loader only case 530 ck, case 530 forklift attachment only, const king case 531 ag case 535 ag case 540 case 540 ag case 540, 540c ag case 540c ag case 541 case 541 ag case 541c ag case 545 ag case 570 case 570 ag case 570 agas, case
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 63-81 Learning Objectives 63 Key Terms 63 Role Theories 65 Motivational Theories 67 Learning Theories 69 Cognitive Theories 73 Symbolic Interaction Theories 75 Socio-Cultural Theories 77 Evolutionary Theories 78 Summary and review 80 review QueStionS 81 4. SELF AND IDENTITY 82-107
2 S o c i a l T h e o r i e s Theories can be used to study society—millions of people in a state, country, or even at the world level. When theories are used at this level they are referred to as macro-level theories, theories which best fit the study of massive numbers of people (typically Conflict and Functional theories).
Case Studies Case Study 1: Leadership Council on Cultural Diversity 19 Case Study 2: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 20 Case Study 3: Law firms 21 Case Study 4: Deloitte Case Study 5: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 23 Case Study 6: Commonwealth Bank of Australia 25 Case Study 7: The University of Sydney 26 Case Study 8 .
Thursday, October 4, 2018 Materials Selection 2 Mechanical Properties Case Studies Case Study 1: The Lightest STIFF Beam Case Study 2: The Lightest STIFF Tie-Rod Case Study 3: The Lightest STIFF Panel Case Study 4: Materials for Oars Case Study 5: Materials for CHEAP and Slender Oars Case Study 6: The Lightest STRONG Tie-Rod Case Study 7: The Lightest STRONG Beam
3 Contents List of acronyms 4 Executive Summary 6 1 Introduction 16 2 Methodology 18 3 Case Studies 25 Case Study A 26 Case Study B 32 Case Study C 39 Case Study D 47 Case Study E 53 Case Study F 59 Case Study G 66 Case Study H 73 4 Findings 81 Appendix A - Literature findings 101 Appendix B - CBA framework 127 Appendix C - Stakeholder interview questionnaire 133
These are equational theories that can be turned into convergent rewrite systems, modulo associativity and commutativity of certain binary operators. Many important theories for intruder deduction fall into this category, e.g., theories for exclusive-or [10,7], Abelian groups [10], and more generally, certain classes of monoidal theories [11].
Theories Proof Systems Class PV, S1 2 eF P [11, 6] PSA, U1 2 QBF PSPACE [18, 6] Ti 2, S i p1 2 G i, G 1 P i [29, 31, 6] VNC0 Frege (F) ALogTime [14, 15, 1] VL GL L [34, 15] VNL GNL NL [35, 15] The rst three theories are rst-order theories; the last three theories are second-order. The last three theories could also be viewed as multi-sorted rst .
