CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3,472

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Persuasion With Case Studies

Siggelkow, Nicolaj·2007·Academy of Management Journal
DOI 10.5465/amj.2007.24160882
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article presents some helpful suggestions on how researchers can write an interesting and convincing paper based on case-based research. A single case study, unless the subject is extremely interesting, will be hard to make interesting enough to hold readers' attention. Case-based research is often criticized for having a biased sample of cases. The main object of case studies should be to provoke thought and new ideas, rather than to poke holes in existing theories. Theories are only simplifications of a much more complex reality.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5465/amj.2007.24160882

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Ramachandran V. S., 1998, Phantoms in the brain
  2. Siggelkow N., 2001, Academy of Management Journal, 44, 838, 10.2307/3069418 · DOI
  3. Siggelkow N., 2002, Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 125, 10.2307/3094893 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 3,472

Metadata

Authors
Siggelkow, N.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania
Venue
Academy of Management Journal
Publisher
Academy of Management
Published
2007-02
Volume
50
Issue
1
Pages
20-24
ISSN
  • 0001-4273
  • 1948-0989
DOI
10.5465/amj.2007.24160882
Cited by
3,472
References
1
Language
en

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