The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Generalizing from Research Findings: The Merits of Case Studies
Abstract
The case study as a key research method has often been criticized for generating results that are less generalizable than those of large‐sample, quantitative methods. This paper clearly defines generalization and distinguishes it from other related concepts. Drawing on the literature, the author shows that case study results may be less generalizable than those of quantitative methods only in the case of within‐population generalization. The author argues that case studies have merits over quantitative methods in terms of theoretical generalization, identifying disconfirming cases and providing useful information for assessing the empirical generalizability of results.
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
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists
Strauss, A. L. (1987) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511557842 · Cited by 12,277
Burawoy, M. (1998) · Sociological Theory · doi:10.1111/0735-2751.00040 · Cited by 2,916
Leonard-Barton, D. (1990) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1.3.248 · Cited by 1,360
A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research
Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. (2006) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpj017 · Cited by 904
Bunge, M. (1997) · Philosophy of the Social Sciences · doi:10.1177/004839319702700402 · Cited by 620
Interlevel Influences on the Reconstruction of Professional Role Identity
Chreim, S., Williams, B. E. (., & Hinings, C. R. (. (2007) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2007.28226248 · Cited by 443
Sampling, Representativeness and Generalizability
Gobo, G. (2004) · Qualitative Research Practice · doi:10.4135/9781848608191.d34 · Cited by 380
Odious Comparisons: Incommensurability, the Case Study, and “Small N's” in Sociology
Steinmetz, G. (2004) · Sociological Theory · doi:10.1111/j.0735-2751.2004.00225.x · Cited by 320
Behavioral assumptions and theory development: the case of transaction cost economics
Tsang, E. W. K. (2006) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.553 · Cited by 143
Self-citation
Cited by
Sample size for qualitative research
Boddy, C. R. (2016) · Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal · doi:10.1108/qmr-06-2016-0053 · Cited by 1,669
Cepiku, D., Hinna, A., Scarozza, D., & Savignon, A. B. (2017) · Journal of Management & Governance · doi:10.1007/s10997-016-9371-3 · Cited by 51
Understanding the link between Sextortion and Suicide
Nilsson, M. G., Calli.Tzani-Pepelasis, Ioannou, M., & Lester, D. (2019) · Zenodo · doi:10.5281/zenodo.3402356 · Cited by 34
Strategic or Silencing? Line Managers’ Repurposing of Employee Voice Mechanisms for High Performance
Mowbray, P. K., Wilkinson, A., & Tse, H. H. M. (2022) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12469 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Tsang, E. W. K.
- Venue
- International Journal of Management Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-11-07
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 369-383
- ISSN
- 1460-8545 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2370
- OpenAlex
- W2167883292
- Cited by
- 420
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 50.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Generalizing from Research Findings: The Merits of Case Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/ijmr.12024
- The paper
- Tsang, E. W. K. (2014). Generalizing from Research Findings: The Merits of Case Studies. International Journal of Management Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12024
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.
