The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What passes as a rigorous case study?
Open accessAbstract
This article investigates the methodological sophistication of case studies as a tool for generating and testing theory by analyzing case studies published during the period 1995–2000 in 10 influential management journals. We find that case studies emphasized external validity at the expense of the two more fundamental quality measures, internal and construct validity. Comparing case studies published in the three highest‐ranking journals with the other seven, we reveal strategies that may be useful for authors wishing to conduct methodologically rigorous case study research. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666 · cited 3×
“As such, construct validity refers to the extent to which a study investigates what it claims to investigate, i.e. to the extent to which a procedure leads to an accurate observation of reality (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.
Jick, T. D. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392366 · Cited by 7,103 · cited 1×
“…as an alternative to “mainstream” or positivist research methods and may be critical of an attempt to emulate the natural science model in data collection and analysis strategies (e.g., Daft and Lewin, 1990; Behling, 1980; Jick, 1979; Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Miles, 1979; Mir and Watson, 2000).”
BackgroundLeonard-Barton, D. (1990) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1.3.248 · Cited by 1,360
Some predictors of SMJ article impact
Bergh, D. D., Perry, J., & hanke, R. (2006) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.504 · Cited by 148
Cited by
Fortune favors the prepared: How SMEs approach business model innovations in Industry 4.0
Müller, J. M., Buliga, O., & Voigt, K.-I. (2018) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.019 · Cited by 1,262
Hengstler, M., Enkel, E., & Duelli, S. (2016) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.12.014 · Cited by 661
Wilhelm, M. M., Blome, C., Bhakoo, V., & Paulraj, A. (2016) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2015.11.001 · Cited by 539
The ‘‘what’’and ‘‘how’’of case study rigor: three strategies based on published work
Gibbert, M., & Ruigrok, W. (2010) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428109351319 · Cited by 506
Self-citationLearning while (re)configuring: Business model innovation processes in established firms
Berends, H., Smits, A., Reymen, I., & Podoynitsyna, K. (2016) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/1476127016632758 · Cited by 274
Metadata
- Authors
- Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B.
- Venue
- Strategic Management Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-09-19
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 1465-1474
- ISSN
- 0143-2095 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0266
- OpenAlex
- W2039354463
- Cited by
- 1,929
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 107.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
