Reflection on case study research and the single case approach 110

Case study research in general and single case study approaches in particular are sub- ject to criticism which needs to be considered in this work – theory vs. practical knowledge, generalisability, theorising, single case, bias. Most notably in his article “Five misunderstandings about case-study research” Flyvbjerg (2006) invalidates the whole set of criticism. Also supported by other references (Gummesson, 2000; Hartley, 2004; Stake, 2005; Siggelkow, 2007; Flyvbjerg, 2011; Buchanan, 2012) this thesis em- braces especially the counter arguments against the criticism as follows:

Theoretical (context-independent) knowledge is more valuable than concrete, practical (context-dependent) knowledge – Context dependent knowledge and experience are at the centre of expert activities and as such build the core of the case study as research. The boundedness of the case study to reality and its comprising details are decisive to gain meaningful understanding of human behaviour and to develop a differentiated view of real-life situations. Concrete insights, learnings, and experiences can be ac- complished by a close connection to reality studied and through feedback from those having been or being part of it.

10 _{Due to the scope and corresponding potential expenditures for this programme, it was an-} nounced to the press as it was assumed to be of particular (potential) shareholder interest.

A case study produces concrete context-dependent knowledge and therefore is more valuable than the useless in search for predictive theories and universals (Flyvbjerg, 2006; 2011).

Single case study cannot contribute to strategic development as you cannot generalise from a single case – Flyvbjerg (2006) counters this argument by stating that it depends upon the case and how it is selected. Moreover, this applies to the study of natural as well as social science (Platt, 1992; Ragin & Becker, 1992). Further, it is suggested that the choice of method should clearly depend on the problem under investigation and its circumstances. The possibility of generalising from one case is based on the measures taken to understand the case in its entirety, enabling the reader to reach a fundamental understanding of the interplay of single parts, structures, processes and driving forces in the case rather than a superficial establishment of correlation or cause-effect relation- ships (Hägg & Hedlund, 1979). According to Gummesson (2000) this can be achieved by good descriptive or analytic language providing all relevant information about the case. Lastly, it should be mentioned whether based on large samples or single cases, formal generalisation is overrated as the main source of scientific development, meaningfulness and value, whereas the strength of example is underestimated. Stake (2005) refers to the possibility of “naturalistic generalisation” which is about making some generalisations entirely from personal or vicarious experience. This kind of generalisation derives from recognising similarities between objects and issues, modifying and reinforcing by repeti- tive patterns. Based on this idea Lincoln & Guba (1985) develop the concept of “transfer- ability” and “fittingness” between contexts. The former is possible if contexts can be judged to be similar. With “fittingness”, they understand the degree of congruence be- tween the context in which the study was conducted and the one to which the findings are to be transferred. This requires sufficient information on the context to allow others to judge whether the findings may be relevant to another context about which they have similar information.

Case study is most useful for generating hypotheses, while other methods are more suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building – Against this statement it is argued that it is very often essential to clarify deeply rooted underlying causes of a stated prob- lem and its impact rather than the outlined symptoms of a problem and how frequently they occur. The benefit and contribution of a case study depends on its propositions for validity researchers’ claim on their research (Flyvbjerg, 2011). Furthermore, it depends on how these propositions are positioned in the discussion of other validity claims to which the research is a contribution. Moreover, very often the case study does not aim for summarising and generalising but to reading it as and in its entirety (Stake, 2005).

Case study contains bias toward verification – The question of such activism applies to all research and other qualitative methods, not just to case studies. Flyvbjerg (2006) opposes the critique by saying that case study research does not encompass a larger extent of bias towards verification than other methods.

There are critical voices on case study research in general and on single case study in particular – However, there is growing confidence in the case study as rigorous re- search strategy (Hartley, 2004). Many authors with considerable comprehensive and strong counterarguments for case study research, including the use of singular cases, argue for its usefulness. Fitzgerald & Dopson (2009) advocate for case study designs since they have been undervalued. They argue that case study research is a valuable research design with significant potential to contribute to organisational studies. Blaikie (2009) takes the view that researchers should “feed” research questions inviting others to think beyond the particulars of single cases to explanations that have some wider application. It is even more strongly argued by Hammersley, Gomm & Foster (2000) that pragmatic considerations, seeking solutions to practical problems, should be given preference, rather than developing coherent theories. Consequently, case study re- search has received increasing recognition among groups of management researchers (Gummesson, 2000).

Aligning the views of Stake (1995; 2005) and Flyvbjerg (2006; 2011) case study re- search is a necessary, valuable and sufficient method for certain important studies in social sciences and maintains its merits in the vast field of social science research methodologies. Especially from a practitioner oriented view good social science should be problem and not methodology driven, using those methods that provide the best help in answering the research questions addressing business and management is- sues at hand (Gummesson, 2000; Flyvbjerg, 2006; Siggelkow, 2007).

Despite all previous criticism, the author of this work shares the views of Stake (1995; 2005), Gummesson (2000), Flyvbjerg (2006; 2011), and Siggelkow (2007) who pro- vide fundamental, reasoning for case study research and its contribution to knowledge and to business and management practice, in particular when researching implementation strategy, implementation, and change. Moreover, their arguments support or even advocate single case study designs.

The research design builds the steps taken linking research questions, data collection methods, data analysis and interpretation in a coherent manner (Hartley, 2004). Overall, the case study approach in this work is consistent with its subjective and in- terpretative perspective taking a social constructionist stance, and the chosen induc- tive and abductive strategy (Hartley, 2004; Bryman & Bell, 2007; Blaikie, 2009). This enables answering of “what”, “why”, and “how” questions (1.4: Research aim, ques- tions, and objectives).

The next section provides detailed information about the case, its characteristics, and context in order to enable the reader to understanding it in its entirety as much as possible.