DESIGNING AND CONDUCTING CASE STUDIES IN …



5. DESIGNING AND CONDUCTING CASE STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS RESEARCH

Pervez Ghauri

INTRODUCTION

A case study is not a methodological choice, but rather a choice of object to be studied. Case studies can be both quantitative and qualitative. In this chapter, I deal with the qualitative type of case studies. I use the term ‘case study’ as it draws our attention to the question of what can be learned from a case. A case study is both the process of learning about the case and the product of our learning. The choice of case is made because it is expected to advance our understanding of the research phenomenon (Ghauri and Grønhaug 2002; Stake 1994). In this chapter, I emphasise designing the case study to optimise understanding of a particular situation or problem rather than generalisation.

In business studies, we normally study cases to provide insight into an issue, a management situation or new theory. In my own research I have used case studies to investigate many IB topics, such as international business negotiations, international joint ventures, market entry processes and headquarter-subsidiary relationships. A case study is a useful method when the area of research is relatively less known, and the researcher is engaged in theory building types of research. This is perhaps the most frequently used approach for thesis and dissertation research in business studies generally, and international business research is no different. However, I will argue that case studies are in fact a flexible research approach that are suited to a range of different types of research questions. Case studies have also been combined with a variety of different epistemological positions, from positivist to phenomenological. In this chapter, I avoid entering into such debates and instead maintain the stance that case studies can be used in both types of research.

Case studies involve data collection through multiple sources such as verbal reports, personal interviews, observation and written reports (such as financial reports, archives, budget and operating statements including market and competition reports). The main feature is therefore the depth and focus on the research object, whether it is an individual, group, organisation, culture, incident or situation. We need to have sufficient information to characterise and explain the unique features of the case, as well as to point out the characteristics that are common to several cases. Finally, this approach relies on the integrative powers of research: the ability to study an object with many dimensions and then to draw the various elements together in a cohesive interpretation (Selltiz, Wrightsman and Cook 1976).

This chapter deals with the stages of a case study project, the first being the decision to use the case study method, and the last concerning how to analyse data that has been collected through cases. Examples from my own case study research, published over the course of a twenty-year period, as well as from my experiences as the editor of International Business Review, will be used to illustrate common dilemmas faced by the practising case study researcher. The hope is that this chapter will form a useful introduction for those embarking upon their first case study research project. Moreover, I aim at suggesting various ways in which case studies can be conducted in a more systematic way.

DECIDING to use A case study

As Yin has famously said, case studies are a preferred approach when ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions are to be answered, when the researcher has little control over events and when the focus is on a current phenomenon in a real-life context (Yin 1994). Also influential in the development of case study research is Eisenhardt’s (1989, pp. 548-9) argument that case studies are:

Particularly well-suited to new research areas or research areas for which existing theory seems inadequate. This type of work is highly complementary to incremental theory building from normal science research. The former is useful in early stages of research on a topic or when a fresh perspective is needed, while the latter is useful in later stages of knowledge development.

However, this does not mean that case study research is only suited to exploratory and descriptive research. Case studies can in fact be used in all types of research: exploratory, descriptive or explanatory (Bonoma 1985; Ghauri and Grønhaug 2002; Yin 1994).

When to use which research approach ultimately depends upon the type of research questions being posed. When research questions concern only ‘what’ (for example, ‘what are the most effective ways to operate an international joint venture?’), the objective of the study is to develop hypotheses or propositions for later testing. For such an exploratory study, a range of research strategies can be used. If the questions relate to ‘how many?’ or ‘how much?’, survey or archival strategies are favoured. For example, compiling a report on the population statistics or overview of a particular industry, i.e. how many companies operate in the industry there, how many of these are domestic or foreign and what are their market shares etc. But when ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions are asked, a case study method as a research strategy is recommended (Ghauri and Grønhaug 2002).

Over the years I have used case studies for a variety of ‘what’, ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions, covering a diverse range of topics in international business. For example: what measures of international competitiveness are relevant to the performance of SMEs (Coviello, Ghauri and Martin 1998)? How does a negotiation process in a domestic setting differ from a negotiation process in an international setting (Ghauri 1983)? How do international joint venture relationships develop over time (Hyder and Ghauri 1989, 2000)? How do headquarter-subsidiary relationships in the MNE change over time (Ghauri 1992)?

The case study method is particularly well suited to international business research, where data is collected from cross-border and cross-cultural settings. Survey and/or experiments raise serious questions about equivalence and comparability of data collected from different countries. In spite of rather sophisticated methods of questionnaire translations and cross-translations, the understanding and interpretation of questions by respondents and of answers and findings by researchers are very difficult to compare and often lead to misleading conclusions. The case study method provides excellent opportunities for respondents and researchers to check their understanding and keep on asking questions until they obtain sufficient answers and interpretations. In-depth interviews are particularly suitable when researcher wants to understand behaviour of decision-makers in different cultures.

Case studies have the potential to deepen our understanding of the research phenomenon, firstly because they allow us to take a longitudinal approach. For example, in Hyder and Ghauri (1989, p. 26) we argued that joint ventures are best understood and studied as a ‘historical process’. Moreover, we were able to extend the time period under study by later returning to the same joint ventures to conduct a follow-up study (Hyder and Ghauri 2000). As most case studies are done through a review of existing historical material and records plus interviews, the case study method is quite similar to historical review, but it is different in the sense that here we have the possibility of direct observation and interaction. The second strength of case studies is, as Yin (1994) has observed, their contextuality. In business studies case research is particularly useful when the phenomenon under investigation is difficult to study outside its natural setting – as typically occurs in international business research, since researchers are often studying the impact of different national contexts. This means that when we wished to understand the effect that the turbulent business environment in Eastern Europe had on foreign firms’ entry strategies, case studies were an effective way of understanding the links between macro-environmental factors, industry-level relationships and firm decision-making (Ghauri and Holstius 1996). A third advantage of this method is that the level of depth with which each case is investigated allows for theory building, not just theory testing (for example, the model of international package deal negotiations that I developed in my 1983 study). Fourthly, case studies are holistic, thus permitting the investigation of a phenomenon from a variety of viewpoints, covering a period of time, and crossing the boundaries between different factors (Ghauri 1983). Concepts and variables under study are often difficult to quantify since there are too many variables to be considered, which makes experiment or survey methods inappropriate to use (Bonoma 1985; Ghauri and Grønhaug 2002; Yin 1994).

To sum up, I would like to make it explicit that case study method is not synonymous with qualitative research or methods. A case study may very well involve quantitative methods or even be entirely quantitative. Whether a case study is used as a research method depends upon the research question, objectives and the research setting/situation. Once this approach has been chosen, we need to think of the next steps such as how to select individual cases and to conduct and analyse them. The rest of the chapter will deal with these issues.

SELECTING CASES

How to select the cases is perhaps the most important issue in this type of research. As in other methods of data collection, it is important to decide the target population that is to be used for the investigation. It includes those firms, individuals, groups or elements that will be represented in the study. The next stage is to assess the accessible population, the population to which we can have access (Cooper 1984). Out of this accessible population we have to select one or few cases, objects or firms, for study. This selection should be based on criteria that are consistent with the research problem. The cases should correspond to our theoretical framework and the variables we are studying. For example, if we are studying the behaviour of industrial buyers, we have to select firms that are dealing with industrial marketing and purchasing. Once we have selected a firm, the informant has to be a manager who is involved in the process of marketing and purchasing. An interview with the firm’s public relations manager or an accountant may not provide us with the information we are looking for (Ghauri and Grønhaug 2002).

The time available for the study, financial resources for travelling, personal contacts and other practical issues are of great importance. For example, depending upon how much time we have to perform the study, the type of organisation or company we select might be different. Consequently, the researcher is likely to be required to mix theory with pragmatism when selecting cases. The most appropriate company in theoretical terms may be too far away, or may simply refuse access. The first meeting with the potential interviewee or company representative is likely to be decisive in terms of whether we are granted access or not. In my experience, the final decision about access is largely determined by our ability as researchers to impress the interviewee during the very first meeting. I have conducted case studies in many different countries and being a foreigner is not necessarily a disadvantage when negotiating access. Particularly when having to rely on a second language, expressions tend to be simpler and the overall communication tends to be more straightforward and direct.

Case selection should also take into account the type of organisation being studied. Based on my own experiences of conducting case studies in SMEs (Coviello et al. 1998) and MNCs (Ghauri 1992; Ghauri and Fang 2001), I would argue that research problems tend to be richer in MNCs, but it is likely to be harder to negotiate access and identify the right informants who have personally been involved in the phenomenon under study. In SMEs, on the other hand, the informants may be eager to learn and willing to participate in an academic study. It tends to be considerably easier to get in touch with people who have themselves participated in the issues being investigated. Hence, selecting the appropriate type of organisation is a balancing act between certain advantages and disadvantages.

To illustrate the case selection process, at the outset of my study on international package deal negotiations (Ghauri 1983), I had initial criteria for the selection of cases (e.g. the seller must be a Swedish firm, but the buyer was to be an organisation from a developing country in one case, and from the domestic market of the NMC in the other, in order to contrast the influence of different environmental factors). These criteria were then modified by both pragmatic considerations (above all, the level of access that I could obtain with or without personal contacts of colleagues and friends) and by the emergent theory. Thus, when choosing the third and final case, a decision was made to focus on a buyer from a different part of the world than had been featured in the other two cases, namely Nigeria. However, important considerations in the selection process were not only differences but also similarities, with all the cases sharing some features that made them comparable (e.g. size and value of the project).

How many cases should be included in a study? The answer to this question is very difficult as there is no upper or lower limit to the number of cases to be included in a study. Many times only one case is enough. As Mintzberg (1979, p. 583) says, ‘What, for example, is wrong with a sample size of one? Why should researchers have to apologize for them? Should Piaget apologize for studying his own children, a physicist for splitting only one atom?’ It is the research problem and the research objectives that influence the number and choice of cases to be studied.

Single cases are appropriate when a particular case is a critical case and we want to use it to explain or question an established theory. It is a critical case because it meets all the conditions necessary to confirm, challenge or extend the theory. For example, in Marschan-Piekkari and Ghauri (1998) we studied regional control in headquarter-subsidiary and inter-subsidiary relationships in a single, Finnish multinational corporation. Given the limited number of earlier studies in the field, the aim was to extend existing theory on regional management in multinationals by examining in depth how control is exercised through regional centres. Another situation is when a single case is an extreme or a unique case; for example, particular organisations may be of interest because they represent ‘outstanding successes’ or ‘notable failures’ (Patton 1990, p. 169). Finally, a single case design is appropriate when a case is revelatory. This means that we can observe and study a phenomenon which was previously not accessible and which can provide useful insights. We can also use single case design in other situations, such as in a pilot study or an exploratory study that serves as a first step to a later, more comprehensive study (Ghauri and Grønhaug 2002; Yin 1994).

In comparative or multiple case studies, we ask or study the same questions in a number of organisations and compare them with each other to draw conclusions. The purpose of data collection in comparative case study method is to compare (replicate) the phenomenon (e.g. strategy formation) in a systematic way, to explore different dimensions of our research issues or to examine different levels of research variables. In this approach we should be clear that every case has to serve a particular purpose in the study. In other words, the researcher has to justify the selection of each case. However, case study design is often flexible and can be changed, modified or revised during the study with proper justification. For example, in my study of international business negotiations (Ghauri 1983) I selected three cases of negotiation processes to investigate how international business negotiations in domestic environments differ from negotiation processes where parties come from different countries/cultures.

A related question is what is meant by ‘a case’? For example, if we are trying to understand the process of decision-making in a firm, we may study multiple decisions on different issues, important/unimportant, novel/routine decisions etc. in the same organisation. This will provide variability along important factors (see e.g. Campbell 1975). Thus, in Ghauri and Fang (2001) we studied a single unit of an MNE (Ericsson in China), but in the context of this one unit we were able to analyse multiple instances of the phenomenon under study, namely international business negotiations.

The use of a particular case study method depends also upon the type of study we are doing, whether it is inductive or deductive, and also upon whether we are looking for specific or general explanations. In the situation of an inductive approach and specific explanations, we may use the single case design. However, if we are looking for general explanations, we should use a multiple-case design. On the other hand, if we are doing a study with a deductive approach we can use the case study at an early stage to develop our hypotheses or propositions. A case study is a less recommended method if we are aiming at generalisations. I recommend that researchers using this method consult Yin (1994) and Ghauri and Grønhaug (2002) for further guidance.

Conducting a case study

Triangulation is one of the defining features of a case study. It refers to the collection of data through different methods or even different kind of data on the same phenomenon. The use of multi-methods or triangulation is not new and can be traced back to Campbell and Fiske (1959), who argued that to ensure validation one should use more than one method. The main advantage of triangulation, however, is that it can produce a more complete, holistic, and contextual portrait of the object under study. In the case study method, it is particularly important as we need to check and validate the information we receive from various sources and examine it from different angles (Ghauri and Grønhaug 2002). For example, we can check the performance of a firm or a project, claimed by the interviewee, from annual accounts, archives or by interviewing another manager or company representative. In essence, we use triangulation to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation. We employ various procedures to increase our understanding and explanation. It helps us clarify meaning by identifying different ways the phenomenon is seen (Denzin 1989; Flick 1992).

In my own research, I have tended to build up case data through interviews, written documentation and observation. When planning personal interviews, I have made a special effort to include multiple viewpoints in the data set by, for example, interviewing both joint venture partners and joint venture managers (Hyder and Ghauri 2000); internal company informants as well as external local authorities, officials and staff at foreign embassies (Ghauri and Holstius 1996). In my 1983 study on international package deal negotiations. interviews were conducted with both the buyer and the seller, so perspectives from both sides of a single negotiation were obtained. Moreover, for all but one firm it was possible to interview two employees, namely the negotiation leader and the project leader. To supplement these interviews, I was able to analyse company files related to each project. The number of files on each of the three cases ranged between 10 and 17, and incorporated such material as correspondence between the two firms, contract drafts as well as the final contract, technical specifications, and relevant government rules and regulations. It was therefore possible to compare data between interviewees within the same firm, between different firms, and in comparison with the written records of each company. Moreover, the comparison of archival and interview data is not the only option. As part of the case study reported in Ghauri and Fang (2001), I shadowed a top manager for a couple of years in the early 1990s. This method, which was very much built on trust and mutual respect between the top manager and myself, provided real insight into face-to-face situations and increased my own understanding of international negotiations. At the same time, the manager found it useful to jointly brainstorm and analyse various situations I had observed.

There are some problems with triangulation. Sometimes it can be difficult to judge the accuracy if the results from different methods and sources are not consistent. For example, the buyer may say he was responsible for initiating new products but suppliers indicate otherwise. A second problem arises when the different methods come up with contradictory results. For example, if a manager shows reports indicating no conflicts in the negotiation process while the archives demonstrate the existence of a number of conflicts, it is important to have this clarified during the interview with the manager by referring to the incidents mentioned in the archives. However, there is a general tendency that we need not evaluate interview responses or written documents as true or false reports on reality. ‘Instead, we can treat such responses as displays of perspectives and moral forms’ (Silverman 1993, p. 107). Moreover, it needs to be kept in mind that all research methods have advantages and disadvantages when it comes to different research problems. One conclusion is that triangulation or the usage of a multi-method approach on the same study object can be useful even if we do not get the same results. It can lead us to a better understanding or to new questions that can be answered by later research. Personally, I have found the study of documents tremendously useful. I have relied on them when preparing sharp and to-the-point interview questions. I have also used them when checking information mentioned in interviews. Hence, documents tend to be rich and have a lot to offer to the researcher both in pre-interview and post-interview situations.

Analysing case studies

Interpreting and analysing qualitative data is perhaps the most difficult task while doing case study research. We cannot be satisfied merely with ‘telling convincing stories’, to use Silverman’s (1989) chapter title. In qualitative research ‘authenticity’ rather than reliability is the main issue. The idea is to present an ‘authentic’ understanding of people’s experience. This means not just understanding the point of view of the individuals and groups being studied; in addition, data has to be interpreted against the background of the context in which they are produced (Hammersley and Atkinson 1983). But how can researchers ensure – and demonstrate – they have produced an authentic interpretation rather than a misguided one? As put by Miles (1979, p. 591):

The most serious and central difficulty in the use of qualitative data is that the method of data analysis is not well formulated ... the analyst faced with a bank of data has very few guidelines for protection against self-delusion, let alone the presentation of unreliable or invalid conclusion to scientific or policy-making decisions. How can we be sure that an ‘earthy’, ‘undeniable’, ‘serendipitous’ finding is not, in fact, wrong?

Part of the answer lies in making sure that data analysis and collection are closely interconnected during the lifecycle of the case study research. Many researchers put a lot of effort into data collection and keep on collecting data through case studies, hoping to do data analysis at the end of the process, sometimes months or years after the data collection. However, this will weaken both the analysis and the data collection processes. In case study research, inter-weaving data collection and data analysis right from the first case/interview is the best policy (Miles and Huberman 1994). This allows theory to develop alongside the growing volume of data, allowing the research problem to be formulated or even reformulated at the same time. This often leads to new questions and new data collection, and there is no definite phase of data analysis (Ghauri and Grønhaug 2002; (Grønhaug 1985; Miles and Huberman 1994). Preferably, a second case should not be started unless the data collected through the first case has been analysed. It will reveal the blind spots and deficiencies of data collected and the researcher can improve his/her data collection techniques in the subsequent cases. Moreover, early analysis reduces the risk that the researcher might simply drown in the sheer volume of data. It is often difficult for case researchers to filter or discard irrelevant data before analysis commences.

While analysis may not form an isolated process, nevertheless it does involve some distinct stages. The first step of analysis is to construct a case description and explanation. This will help us understand ‘how’ things are developing and ‘why’ things occur the way they do. First we have to describe, i.e. make complicated things understandable in their component parts, and explain, i.e. show how their component parts fit together according to some rules (Bernard 1988). However, it is hard to describe and explain something satisfactorily unless you understand what this ‘something’ is. It is thus important to start with simple ‘story telling’ about a situation and progress in chronological order. Consequently, we can construct a map and locate different elements and variables. This will finally lead us to build a theory or a model, i.e. how the variables are connected together and how they influence each other (Miles and Huberman 1994; Rein and Schon 1977). Step by step we can advance along the ‘ladder of abstraction’. We start by trying to code and categorise text, then identify trends and establish findings. Finally, we integrate the data into an explanatory framework (Carney 1990; Gherardi and Turner 1987). These different techniques are summarised in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Case study analysis

|Techniques for case study |Explanation |

|analysis | |

|Chronologies |Narratives of the events that took place, organised by date |

|Coding |Sorting data according to concepts and themes |

|Clustering |Categorising cases according to common characteristics |

|Matrices |Explaining the interrelationship between identified factors |

|Decision tree modelling |Grounding a description of real-world decisions and actions |

| |coherently by using multiple cases |

|Pattern matching |Comparison between a predicted and an empirically based |

| |pattern |

The first stage of analysis, ‘story-telling’, can be done by writing chronologies or biographical histories of the organisation(s) or individual(s) under study. This is particularly important when the researcher is attempting to develop longitudinal explanations that track a phenomenon over time. For example, in my study of international package deals negotiations (Ghauri 1983), the first step in my analysis was to construct a simple narrative of each negotiation, from the first offer and informal meetings to the final negotiations and signing of the contract.

The second stage of analysis is also a sifting process. This means rearranging the data that has been collected, but into more conceptual rather than chronological categories. To analyse data we (often) have to code them so that they can be broken down, conceptualised, put together and presented in an understandable manner. Sorting the data in this fashion is typically done through coding, in other words, classifying the data. This coding and categorisation will help us to interpret the data and to relate the information to our questions and frameworks. This will also enable us to locate different categories when we are analysing data to find conclusions. As qualitative studies quite often help in building theories, coding requires extra care, and a balance between creativity, rigour and persistence has to be achieved.

There are several software programs available that can help researchers in coding, sorting and analysing qualitative data. However, we recommend that researchers should consult/visit these software packages before starting and planning data collection. Each software package might require specific data collection techniques/methods in order to be able to analyse the collected data. In other words, once you have collected that data, these software programs might be of little help. One such program is called NUD*IST and is available in several versions (for a discussion, see Lindsay, Chapter 24 this volume). Such software programs are particularly useful in rendering data analysis more systematic and providing counter-arguments to those who claim that case study researchers are ‘just telling stories’.

An important part of the sifting process is searching for common or conflicting themes in data, and looking for themes and trends related to our research questions. This will allow us to identify relationships between different themes and research questions. Moreover, it will enable us to detect gaps in our data and to write initial analytical reports. The requirement is that the pattern has to be sufficiently systematic. Many researchers suggest that case comparison can be done by forming types or clusters. This technique involves inspecting cases and trying to put them into groups or clusters that share similar patterns of configurations. These clusters can also be sorted according to some dimensions, e.g. international versus domestic firms (Lofland and Lofland 1984; Morse and Bottorff 1992). Another way is to look for themes or variables that cut through cases. For example, Eisenhardt (1989) found evidence for the construct of ‘power centralisation’ by looking at data on CEO behaviour in 10 micro-computer firms: her matrix display included objectives describing decision style, quantitative measures and specific quoted examples (Miles and Huberman 1994).

Another possible step in the analytical process of answering our research questions is to test our propositions. This is done by cross-checking for commonality and integrating the data in one single framework through a meticulous case comparison. Developing a good case comparison in a multiple case study is essential but not very simple, as different cases might tell different stories and lead to different variables. It is also necessary to know/establish relevance and applicability of our findings to similar situations (Firestone and Harriott 1983). The most important reason, however, is to enhance our understanding and explanation, as this will help us explain under what circumstances/conditions our propositions/model work and under what conditions they do not. We can then conclude under what conditions the model is most likely to work (Glaser and Strauss 1970). In my capacity as the editor of International Business Review, I have noticed that case study researchers have considerable difficulties in drawing conclusions that clearly stem from the case data. In a number of manuscripts that I receive the connection between case analysis and the concluding section is very weak.

One way to draw conclusions from data collected through case study methods is to look for commonalities and differences, for example, in the case of multiple cases. As stated by Boyd, Wesfall and Stasch (1985, p. 51):

In one study to improve the productivity of the sales force of a particular company, the investigator studied intensively two or three of the best sales representatives and two or three of the worst. Data was collected on the background and experience of each representative and then several days were spent making sales calls with them. As a result, a hypothesis was developed. It was that checking the stock of retailers and suggesting items on which they were low were the most important differences between the successful and the poor sales representatives.

As illustrated by the above example, we can find answers to our questions by comparing different cases. In some cases the best and worst comparisons are most suitable (Churchill 1991). In the same manner we could compare performance of several units/branches of a company by comparing them with each other.

Another approach is to use the strategy suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 176): ‘stacking comparable cases’. According to this strategy, we can write up each of a series of cases, using more or less standard variables. Then we can use matrices and other displays to analyse each case in depth, and explore the interrelationship between different factors. Once each case is well understood, we can ‘stack’ the case-level display in a ‘meta-matrix’, which is then further condensed, permitting systematic comparison (for an example of a matrix display, see Figure 5.1). Eisenhardt (1989) called this strategy a ‘replication strategy’. Gladwin (1989) suggested a further analytical approach, that of ‘decision tree modelling’, the starting point for which is to describe the factors in individual decision-making. Once a decision tree is constructed for each individual/case, one can do a composite tree. For more detail on these methods, I recommend that readers consult Miles and Huberman (1994, Chapters 7 and 8).

| | |Atmosphere |

| | |Cooperation and |Distance |Power and |Expectation |

| | |conflict | |dependence | |

|Proce|Offer | | | | |

|ss | | | | | |

| |Informal meetings | | | | |

| |Final offer | | | | |

| |Planning for | | | | |

| |negotiations | | | | |

| |Formal negotiations | | | | |

| |I | | | | |

| |Internal meetings | | | | |

| |Formal negotiations | | | | |

| |II | | | | |

Source: Ghauri (1983, p. 56)

Figure 5.1 An example of a matrix display in case study analysis

In case studies where data analysis leads to the development of propositions, the aim of the analysis should be a link between data and propositions. Campbell (1975) and Yin (1994) discuss ‘pattern matching’, where several pieces of information from one or several cases are related to a priori assumptions. If we can find a systematic or unsystematic pattern, we can accept or reject our propositions. In such studies, statistical tests are not necessary to establish a pattern and there are no precise ways of testing or setting criteria for interpreting these findings. The pattern has to be sufficiently systematic to accept certain propositions.

As case analysis is a difficult task, I recommend that researchers should use a mixture of the above mentioned strategies: case comparison based on pattern seeking, clustering, matrices and other techniques displayed in Table 5.1. Most often, I start with a preliminary model or set of variables based on existing literature, then develop and refine a model as the analysis progresses. For example, my starting point in the 1983 study was the variables of an existing model, the so-called interaction model (Håkansson 1982). The interaction model explains the development of long-term relationships between firms, but its applicability to the short episode of a negotiation was not clear. During the course of the case study research, I was able to develop a model that could explain both the interplay between the different factors, and their temporal flow (Ghauri 1983).

The precise method of analysis will in addition depend on the type of study being undertaken. In descriptive research, the researcher has to work with specific research problems, propositions or hypotheses. While an exploratory study is characterised by flexibility (see e.g. Ghauri 1983), a descriptive study can be considered more rigid. It requires a clear specification of the who, what, why and how of the research problem. For further details into specific techniques for data analysis for descriptive studies, the reader should look into Churchill (1999) and Ghauri and Grønhaug (2002).

CONCLUSIONS

This chapter has dealt with case study research in international business studies. Based on my experiences of conducting case studies over a period of 20 years, it seems that case studies are becoming an increasingly accepted form of research. This can be observed, for example, at international academic conferences where conference papers demonstrate a high level of awareness of case studies. Moreover, in recent years a number of guide books have been published providing useful advice on how to conduct case studies. Several prominent scholars are also calling for case studies to provide us with a more in-depth understanding and insights into culturally embedded problems of our field. Yet we do not see case studies widely published in top class journals such as Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS), Journal of Marketing or Academy of Management Journal. As a researcher and an editor, I would strongly encourage case study researchers to exercise a little self-criticism and move beyond ‘just telling stories’. Moreover, we cannot keep on conducting ‘theory development’ studies in a particular discipline for several decades. Sooner or later we have to start testing the theories that have been developed and come up with somewhat generalisable results.

In this respect, I have been pleased to note that analysing qualitative data is becoming increasingly systematic, irrespective of the researcher’s orientation. This chapter has thus treated the case study method in a manner that may permit some systematic analysis and enhance reviewers’ confidence in findings (Miles and Huberman 1994). Although there are many methods available for collecting and analysing qualitative data, I have concentrated on case studies and analysing data collected through this method. I also want to re-emphasise that it is the research question that influence the choice of framework and methods, although initial data collection through cases may influence our conceptual framework. Finally, it is worth noting that the difference between qualitative and quantitative research is not that of quality!

REFERENCES

Bernard, H.R. (1988), Research Methods in Cultural Anthropology, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bonoma, T.V. (1985), ‘Case research in marketing: opportunities, problems, and a process’, Journal of Marketing Research, 12, 199-208.

Boyd, W.B., R. Wesfall and S.F. Stasch (1985), Marketing Research: Text and Cases, 6th edn, Homewood, Il: Irwin.

Campbell, D.T. (1975), ‘Degrees of freedom and the case study’, Comparative Political Studies, 8 (2), 173-93.

Campbell, D.T. and W. Fiske (1959), ‘Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrail-multimethod matrix’, Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.

Carney, T.F. (1990), Collaborative Inquiry Methodology, Windsor, Ontario: University of Windsor, Division for Instructional Development.

Churchill, G.A. (1991), Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations, 5th edn, Chicago: Dryden Press.

——— (1999), Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations, 7th edn, Fort Worth, TX: Dryden Press.

Cooper, H.M. (1984), The Integrative Research Review: A Systematic Approach, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Coviello, N.E., P.N. Ghauri and K.A.-M. Martin (1998), ‘International competitiveness: empirical findings from SME service firms’, Journal of International Marketing, 6 (2), 8-27.

Denzin, N.K. (1989), The Research Act, 3rd edn, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), ‘Building theories from case study research’, Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532-50.

Firestone, W.A. and R.E. Harriott (1983), ‘The formalization of qualitative research: an adaption of “soft” science to the policy world’, Evaluation Review, 7, 437-66.

Flick, U. (1992), ‘Triangulation revisited: strategy of validation or alternative?’, Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour, 22, 175-98.

Ghauri, P.N. (1983), Negotiating International Package Deals: Swedish Firms in Developing Countries, Almquist and Wiksell, Stockholm.

——— (1992), ‘New structures in MNCs based in small countries: a network approach’, European Management Journal, 10 (3), 357-64.

Ghauri, P. and T. Fang (2001), ‘Negotiating with the Chinese: a socio-cultural analysis’, Journal of World Business, 36 (3), 303-25.

Ghauri P. and K. Grønhaug (2002), Research Methods in Business Studies: A Practical Guide, Harlow, UK: Financial Times and Prentice Hall.

Ghauri, P.N. and K. Holstius (1996), ‘The role of matching in the foreign market entry process in the Baltic States’, European Journal of Marketing, 30 (2), 75-88.

Gherardi, S. and B.A. Turner (1987), ‘Real men don’t collect soft data’, Quaderno, 13, Dipartimento di Politica Sociale, Univeristà di Trento, pp. 1-17.

Gladwin, C.H. (1989), Ethnographic Decision Tree Modelling, Newberry Park CA: Sage.

Glaser, B.G. and A.L. Strauss (1970), ‘Discovery of substantive theory’, in W. Filstead (ed.), Qualitative Methodology, Chicago: Rand McNally, pp. 288-97.

Grønhaug, K. (1985), ‘Problemer i empirisk forskning’, in NHH/RSF, Metoder og Perspektiver i Økonomisk-Administrativ Forskning, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Hammersley, M. and P. Atkinson (1993), Ethnography: Principles in Practice, London: Tavistock.

Hyder, S.A. and P.N. Ghauri (1989), ‘Joint venture relationship between Swedish firms and developing countries: a longitudinal case study’, Journal of Global Marketing, 2 (4), 25-47.

——— (2000), ‘Managing international joint venture relationships: a longitudinal perspective’, Industrial Marketing Management, 29, 205-18.

Håkansson, H. (1982), International Marketing and Purchasing of Goods, Chichester: Wiley.

Lofland, J. and L.H. Lofland (1984), Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observational Research, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Marschan-Piekkari, R. and P.N. Ghauri (1998), ‘Growing pains in multinationals: controlling subsidiaries through regional centers’, Research Report 98B39, Research Institute Systems, Organisation and Management, University of Groningen, Netherlands.

Miles, M.B. (1979), ‘Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: the problem of analysis’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 590-601.

Miles, M.B. and A.M. Huberman (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd edn., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mintzberg, H. (1979), ‘An emerging strategy of “direct” research’, in J. van Maanen (ed.), Qualitative Methodology, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 105-16.

Morse, J.M. and J.L. Bottorff (1992), ‘The emotional experience of breast expression’, in J.M. Morse (ed.), Qualitative Health Research, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 319-32.

Patton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd edn, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rein, M. and D. Schon (1977), ‘Problem setting in policy research’, in C. Weiss (ed.), Using Social Policy Research in Public Policy-Making, Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, pp. 235-51.

Selltiz, C., S. Wrightsman and S.W. Cook (1976), Research Methods in Social Relations, 3rd edn, New York: Wiley.

Silverman, D. (1989), ‘The impossible dream of reformism and romanticism’ in J.F. Gubrium and D. Silverman (eds), The Politics of Field Research: Beyond Enlightenment, Newbury Parke CA: Sage, pp. 30-48.

——— (1993), Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction, London: Sage.

Stake, R.E. (1994), ‘Case studies’, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 236-47.

Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks: Sage.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download