Abstract
This study was inspired by two of the leading papers in the case study method: Eisenhardt (1991) and Dyer and Wilkins (1991). The work of those authors could be considered a benchmark for research based on a case study. Additionally, this research comes as a complement to re-categorize case study research design. After reviewing those papers, the authors identified certain misunderstandings relative to when a case study should be addressed as single or multiple case studies. This study reviewed both recent and ancient research papers that used the case study research design in their investigations based on this misunderstanding. Thus, the previously identified misinterpretation of case study categorization is the gap this study filled. For this study, the case study research design was to be re-categorized to understand which case study design suits which research study. Accordingly, based on the identified gap, the study used secondary data to re-categorize the case study research design through a literature review method. As a result, the study identified three case study categories: single setting case study with single sub-case, single setting case study with multiple sub-cases, and multiple case studies. Consequently, the result re-categorizes single case study design into single sub-case and multiple sub-cases. This study makes recommendations through the proposed approach that filled the gap identified in the case study design categorization. In terms of adding to knowledge, this study’s proposed approach will augment the optimal use of case study research design by management, economics, and other disciplines’ researchers in the future.
Highlights
First and foremost, Eisenhardt (1991) and Dyer and Wilkins (1991) perspectives on the case study inspired this study
The authors identified certain misunderstandings relative to when a case study should be addressed as single or multiple case studies. This study reviewed both recent and ancient research papers that used the case study research design in their investigations based on this misunderstanding
From the argument engineered by Eisenhardt (1989, 1991) vs. Dyer and Wilkins (1991), we got inspired to write this study to fill in the gap relative to case study categorization
Summary
First and foremost, Eisenhardt (1991) and Dyer and Wilkins (1991) perspectives on the case study inspired this study. The research conducted by eral approach for planning case study leading to Dutton and Dukerich (1991), the authors based proposals for exploratory, explanatory, and detheir investigation on comparing 5 different peri- scriptive cases Each of those three techods to develop their theory. As searcher highlight that they have based their work to choose whether or not, a researcher should on the comparison across the different situation in choose either single or multiple case study meththose cases (Whyte, 1943; Gouldner, 1954; Dutton od according to the result of Gustafsson’s (2017). Single setting case with single sub-case cise categorization of the case study method
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
