Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explain the background to the special issue and to provide an introduction to the articles on case studies included in the issue.

The paper uses a review of developments in both the qualitative tradition and case studies in management research to provide a backdrop for the articles that are included in the issue. The articles discuss: the merits of unique cases and singular forms of evidence within a single case; the comparability of case studies with tools in other areas; and methods of theorising from case studies.

The merits of case studies have often been understated. The articles in this issue highlight a broader variety of uses of case study research than is commonly recognized.

This guest editorial introduces the papers in this issue, which may be read either as individual contributions that have merits per se, or as part of a collection that this introductory paper helps to knit together.

This paper describes the organizational processes of knowledge acquisition, sharing, retention and utilisation as it affected the internal and external communication of knowledge about performance in an English police force. The research was gathered in three workshops for internal personnel, external stakeholders and chief officers, using Journey Making, a computer‐assisted method of developing shared understanding. The research concluded that there are multiple audiences for the communication of knowledge about police performance, impeded by the requirement to publish performance data. However, the intelligence‐led policing model could lead to a more focused means of communication with various stakeholder groups. Although technology investment was a preferred means of communicating knowledge about performance, without addressing cultural barriers, an investment in technology may not yield the appropriate changes in behaviour. Consequently, technology needs to be integrated with working practices in order to reduce organizational reliance on informal methods of communication.

This study aims to focus on the accountability of organizations to multiple stakeholders with differing interests and power, where there is an absence of accountability towards shareholders.

Longitudinal field study via participant‐observation.

The study focuses on the relations between the subsidiary and the parent boards and how a governance improvement plan affected the internal dynamics of the organization and helped to clarify the demands of multiple stakeholders. A stakeholder‐agency model is developed which emphasises the role of governance, the importance of structure and process, and the culture or ethos of boards in which multiple stakeholders may have compatible rather than competing interests.

The paper focuses on the quasi‐public sector and develops stakeholder‐agency theory by identifying governance at the centre of differing relationships with stakeholders with unequal salience where there is both an economic concern with efficiency and a broader social concern.

To consider the role of technology in knowledge management in organizations, both actual and desired.

Facilitated, computer‐supported group workshops were conducted with 78 people from ten different organizations. The objective of each workshop was to review the current state of knowledge management in that organization and develop an action plan for the future.

Only three organizations had adopted a strongly technology‐based “solution” to knowledge management problems, and these followed three substantially different routes. There was a clear emphasis on the use of general information technology tools to support knowledge management activities, rather than the use of tools specific to knowledge management.

Further research is needed to help organizations make best use of generally available software such as intranets and e‐mail for knowledge management. Many issues, especially human, relate to the implementation of any technology. Participation was restricted to organizations that wished to produce an action plan for knowledge management. The findings may therefore represent only “average” organizations, not the very best practice.

Each organization must resolve four tensions: between the quantity and quality of information/knowledge, between centralized and decentralized organization, between head office and organizational knowledge, and between “push” and “pull” processes.

Although it is the group rather than an individual that determines what counts as knowledge, hardly any previous studies of knowledge management have collected data in a group context.

Presents a case study of intellectual capital within the police service of the UK. Describes the acquisition and maintenance of intellectual capacity through five mechanisms and explores the ways in which the utilization of intellectual capacity is reported. Makes two contributions to the emerging debate on intellectual capital. First, differentiates intellectual capital as an investment in the stock of knowledge from intellectual capacity as the flow or utilization of that knowledge. Second, emphasizes the difference between the (instrumental) value of intellectual capital in pursuit of purposes and the (representational) value of intellectual capital as contained in published reports. Concludes that intellectual capacity is essential for the police to prevent and detect crime, and to maintain public order, road safety and the confidence of the public. Despite the limitations of traditional accounting measures, the paper argues that those who report performance should value intellectual capital rather than be concerned with reporting its value through financial or quantitative metrics.

The paper's purpose is to explore a theoretical and methodological dilemma.

Commencing doctoral research, and committed to an orthodox grounded theory approach, a unique story was uncovered which, to do it and the research justice, required an alternative form of representation. Intuition decreed that this should be narrative. However, grounded theory and narrative entail epistemologically and ontologically incommensurate paradigms. The paper seeks to consider whether inclusion of the unique story would compromise, or subvert, the already emergent grounded theory. An exploration of the relationship between different epistemological and ontological traditions is also to be made, based on the assumption that method “slurring,” and a more eclectic approach to using incommensurate paradigms, may be valuable.

In transcribing and coding data using strictly orthodox grounded theory methods, the researcher runs the risk of “stripping” the research story of some critical dimension(s). However, combining a narrative approach with that of grounded theory, the paper allows for the representation of an atypical “Maverick” case, along‐side other more typical cases.

The paper points out, to the early career qualitative researcher in particular, that it is legitimate to combine seemingly incommensurate methodologies, notably where not to do so would result in the loss of enriching and powerful insights into basic social processes.

The aim of this paper is to present a reinforced version of structuration theory, known as strong structuration theory, set out in Stones as a disciplined approach to qualitative case study research in the organization, management and accounting fields. This framework challenges the belief held by certain critics that structuration theory cannot be used in substantive empirical research but is only a sensitising device or analytical tool.

A conceptual discussion is the approach of the paper.

The key concepts of strong structuration theory are outlined and then put in the context first of two attempts to apply the framework to empirical research and second of two recent papers which address theoretically informed qualitative research and the use of structuration theory in IT studies.

There are some limitations of this paper. The framework offered was not used to set the original research questions in the two case studies employed as these cases were conducted before the publication of Stones' book in 2005. Also, as weaknesses in the framework can best be assessed using empirical findings, a full evaluation cannot be carried out until such research is undertaken.

This paper draws on recent research and thinking in sociology that have yet to be brought into case studies in the fields of accounting and management in particular.

This paper aims to challenge the conventional wisdom in qualitative case study research that the findings of the case depend on the identification of common themes across the statements of multiple case informants (usually, as expressed at interview).

This is a methodological paper that uses a published work to illustrate its arguments. It explores research on the meaning and significance of politically and culturally sensitive emergent change.

The paper finds that, during such change, many respondents may not accurately discern the “direction of travel” in their organization and, hence, gathering evidence on common views may not be a productive research strategy.

It was only possible to use one illustration (politically and culturally sensitive emergent change); other scenarios where the “singular view” may be significant were, therefore, not covered.

Ultimately, the findings of a case study may have to rely on insights from just one respondent.

This paper argues that for some research agenda “singular views” may be more insightful than “common themes.” It also discusses the development of research that is prompted by a “singular view.”

The purpose of this paper is to advocate that case study research needs to renew itself and employ its full potential as an innovative theory‐generating methodology in management disciplines; and to propose that a viable strategy for such renewal is to exploit the power of case study research and network theory as supplementary methodologies.

The paper is a reflective and synthesising comparative study.

If one steps down from the tip of the iceberg and inspects the underwater properties of case study research and network theory a common core is found: the recognition of complexity. The methodologies supplement each other, case study research primarily using verbal language and qualitative data, while network theory uses a nodes‐and‐links language that opens up for verbal, graphic and mathematical treatment. Case study research is primarily associated with qualitative research in social sciences and network theory with quantitative research in both social and natural sciences. By abolishing the unfortunate categories of qualitative/quantitative and natural sciences/social sciences that have been set against each other, and letting them join forces for a common goal – to learn about life – people open up for methodological creativity.

By comparing case study research with network theory on a fundamental level, the paper offers a novel perspective on research. It is a contribution to an overriding desire to improve the understanding of management and society.