Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,289

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Renaissance of case research as a scientific method

Ketokivi, Mikko, Choi, Thomas·2014·Journal of Operations Management
DOI 10.1016/j.jom.2014.03.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Since the seminal article by Eisenhardt (1989), scholarly interest in case research has mushroomed in operations management and organization sciences. Volumes of methodological texts are matched with a massive amount of empirical research that seeks to apply and further develop case research as a scientific method. What is missing from this literature is a treatment of the methodological diversity of case research. In this paper, we seek to unveil this heterogeneity by describing three distinct methodological accounts of case study: theory generation, theory testing, and theory elaboration. Each approach has its own idiosyncrasies, in particular when it comes to the interplay between theory and empirics. A typical case research incorporates both existing theories and empirical data to varying degrees. In light of this heterogeneity, we re‐interpret key aspects of extant contributions and discuss guidelines for future case research. We propose that ultimately, case research rigor is determined by attention to idiosyncrasy and transparency of reasoning. We conclude by arguing that we have witnessed in the past 25 years in organization research what amounts to the Renaissance of case research.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jom.2014.03.004

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 65 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Bacon F., 1901, Novum Organum
  2. Carnap R., 1956, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science I, 38
  3. Geertz C., 1973, Interpretation of Cultures
  4. Hawthorne J., 2012, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  5. 10.2307/259349 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1016/S0272-6963(01)00082-1 · doi:10.1016/s0272-6963(01)00082-1
  7. Nunnally J.C., 1994, Psychometric Theory
  8. Ragin C.C., 1992, What Is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry
  9. 10.5465/amr.1989.4308371 · doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4308371 · Paper page

Cited by

See all 1,289

Metadata

Authors
Ketokivi, M., & Choi, T.
Venue
Journal of Operations Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-04-04
Volume
32
Issue
5
Pages
232-240
ISSN
  • 0272-6963 (ISSN-L)
  • 1873-1317
DOI
10.1016/j.jom.2014.03.004
OpenAlex
W1963774948
Cited by
1,289
References
65
FWCI
100.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Renaissance of case research as a scientific method. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jom.2014.03.004
The paper
Ketokivi, M., & Choi, T. (2014). Renaissance of case research as a scientific method. Journal of Operations Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.03.004

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.