Case study research occupies an unusual position in management scholarship: it’s simultaneously one of the field’s most influential methods — responsible for many of its foundational theoretical contributions — and one of the most frequently misunderstood in terms of what rigor actually requires. Done well, it can generate theory that large-sample quantitative studies simply can’t produce. Done poorly, it invites exactly the “just a story” criticism that skeptical reviewers raise.
What Case Studies Are Good For
Case study research is particularly well suited to questions about process (how does a phenomenon unfold over time), mechanism (why does a particular relationship hold), and context (how do particular conditions shape outcomes) — questions that require depth and contextual richness rather than large-sample generalizability.
Case Selection: The Foundation of Rigor
Unlike quantitative sampling, case selection in qualitative research is typically purposeful rather than random — chosen because the case is theoretically informative, not because it’s statistically representative. Common strategies include selecting extreme or unusual cases (which can reveal mechanisms more clearly), or selecting multiple contrasting cases to build toward a more generalizable theoretical claim through replication logic.
Single Case vs. Multiple Case Designs
A single, deeply studied case can be appropriate when the phenomenon is rare, when access is unusually rich, or when the goal is a detailed process account. Multiple case designs, by contrast, allow for a replication logic — treating each case as a test of an emerging theoretical proposition — which tends to produce findings reviewers view as more robust and generalizable.
Data Triangulation
Rigorous case study research typically draws on multiple data sources — interviews, archival documents, direct observation — rather than relying on a single source. This triangulation strengthens the credibility of findings and helps surface inconsistencies that a single-source design might miss entirely.
Building Toward Theoretical Contribution
The clearest weakness reviewers flag in case study submissions is a rich narrative that never quite crystallizes into a generalizable theoretical claim. Strong case study papers explicitly connect the specific case’s findings to a broader theoretical proposition or framework — often through a formal coding process that moves systematically from raw data to abstracted concepts.
Addressing Generalizability Directly
Case study researchers should distinguish clearly between statistical generalizability (which case studies don’t offer) and analytical or theoretical generalizability (extending a theoretical proposition to other, similar contexts) — a distinction that, stated explicitly in the paper, preempts a common reviewer critique.
Common Weaknesses to Avoid
- Insufficient detail on case selection rationale, leaving readers unable to evaluate whether the case is theoretically appropriate
- A purely descriptive narrative without an explicit analytical framework connecting observations to theory
- Reliance on a single data source without triangulation
- Vague or absent discussion of how findings might (or might not) generalize beyond the specific case
The Enduring Value of Rigorous Case Research
Some of management theory’s most influential ideas originated in careful case study work precisely because certain organizational phenomena are difficult to capture through survey or archival data alone. Treated with the same methodological seriousness as any other approach, case study research remains a powerful tool for theory-building.
For a foundational, widely cited methodological reference on case study design, Kathleen Eisenhardt’s work on building theory from case study research remains a standard reference point in management scholarship.
Building theory from rich case data? Check the journal’s scope and submit your manuscript through the paper submission page.