In this brief paper I place the case study method within the methodology of business history and in a broader perspectiveof researching business and management. I also illustrate the sue of case studies as a pedagogical tool and itsimplications for the teaching of MBAs in Latin America.Keywords: Business history, method, case study, MBA, Latin Americ

Bátiz-Lazo, Bernardo

English

Contribuciones Científicas y Tecnológicas

12  CONTRIBUCIONES CIENTÍFICAS Y TECNOLÓGICASThe Case Study Method and The Methodology of Business HistoryBernardo Bátiz-Lazo b.batiz-lazo@bangor.ac.uk Bangor UniversityWalesBernardo Bátiz-Lazo  Resumen    En este breve artículo se posiciona el método del caso de estudio dentro de la metodología de la historia empresa-rial desde de una perspectiva más amplia de investigación en las áreas de negocios y administración. También se ilustra la potencialidad de los casos de estudios como una herramienta pedagógica y sus implicancias para la enseñanza de cursos de MBA en América Latina.Palabras claves: historia empresarial, método, caso de estudio, MBA, América LatinaAbstract In this brief paper I place the case study method within the methodology of business history and in a broader pers-pective of researching business and management. I also illustrate the sue of case studies as a pedagogical tool and its implications for the teaching of MBAs in Latin America.Key words: Business history, method, case study, MBA, Latin AmericaCONTRIBUCIONES CIENTÍFICAS Y TECNOLÓGICAS  13The “…five years [to 2014] witnessed a ‘historic turn’ in business schools. Until the 1960s, economic history and business history had an important place in business school teaching and research.  Many management scholars then decided to emulate research models developed in the hard sciences, which led to history becoming marginal in most business schools. History lost respect among positivistic management academics because historians made few broad theoretical claims, rarely discussed their research methodologies, and did not explicitly identify their independent and dependent variables. Historians in management schools became, effectively, disciplinary guests in their institutions.”  Andrew Smith (2014). IntroductionMy contribution to the workshop compared and con-trasted the use of case studies in business history ver-sus other areas of business research. This comparison is based on the case study being the hallmark of pedago-gy for business and management education across the world. The case study is also the predominant method of researching business history.To articulate that comparison and, as noted by Smith (2014) above, I offered examples from the growing lite-rature explaining to colleagues in business schools that there is a method and methodology in business history1. The discussion also included references to the challen-ges of building theories from case studies for main-stream business research, the use and misuse of case studies in student dissertations as well as the use of case studies as a teaching tool. Issues for Positivist Management ResearchBroadly speaking, a methodology deals with  the pro-cess of research while a research method is a particular technique for collecting and analysing data. The case 1 See in greater detail in Decker (2013); Bucheli and Wadhwani (2014); Decker (2014); Larsson et al. (2014); Rowlinson et al. (2014); de Jong and Higgins (2015); de Jong et al. (2015); Decker et al. (2015).  study is a contested concept both as a method and a me-thodology in business and management research. This is evident as there is no agreed definition of  what consti-tutes a good case study. Neither can you find a “recipe” or set order of steps to follow in textbooks on business and management research, in the same way that one might find formulae for  designing a survey questionnaire or assessing the results of a regression. Yin (1984) and Eisenhardt (1989) are perhaps the most enduring texts for the understanding of case studies as a research method in business and management. Yin (1984) defines case study research as:“an empirical inquiry that investigates a contempo-rary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sour-ces of evidence are used” (p. 23). This definition has permeated others. For instance, Rie-ge (2003) defines the case study method as being. “about theory construction and building, and is based on the need to understand a real-life pheno-menon with researchers obtaining new holistic and in-depth understanding, explanations and interpre-tations about previously unknown experiences of practitioners, which may stem from creative disco-very as much as from research design.” (p. 80). What do these definitions tell us? First, Yin (1989), Riege (2003) and many others are in agreement that by using multiple sources of information the case study achieves its distinct feature of presenting the enquiry’s subject within its (rich) context, over a defined period of time. Secondly, there needs to be a protocol that explains how to systematically collate multiple sources of information. This process is called triangulation or the idea that “the Truth” will be found not by trusting a single informant or source but in the regularity that forms and emerges 14  CONTRIBUCIONES CIENTÍFICAS Y TECNOLÓGICASfrom overlapping different sources of information. Trian-gulation is thus the key for case studies to achieve objec-tivity and identify causality. Broadly, the sources of information for triangulation are:• Theoretical: uses two or more reference frames (perspectives) when analysing the data set; • Data: gather observations from a few sampling stra-tegies to ensure theory tested in many ways; • Investigator: many observers, coders, interviewers &/or analysts in the study;• Methodological: use of two or more data collection methods in the same study.Of the above list, theoretical and investigator triangula-tion are perhaps the least used. There are, of course, nota-ble examples such as Bryer (2006) and Fleischman (2000).Data and method triangulation tend to be the most po-pular. This is partly because for Eisenhardt (1989), Llewllyn (1992), Riege (2003), Yin (1984) and many others working in business and management, case study research ought to pursue a central proposition firmly rooted in (but not bounded by) established conceptual frameworks. This is consistent with the epistemology of positivist research which calls for hypothesis testing. Case study research thus becomes an exemplar of a particular instance of so-mething used or analysed to illustrate a specific principle or conceptual framework. This view, by the way, is shared by some business historians such as de Jong and Higgins (2015).At the same time, however, generating insights from case studies is little understood. This is critical as, for main-stream research in business and management, the case study has no hermeneutics or valid theory of interpretation. Why is this?  Because business and ma-nagement research perceives case study research to be subjective and lacking validity, reliability and generali-zability.Case study research is perceived as subjective because researchers are not objective observers but have clo-se and personal contact with the organization and the people examined. There is no consensus about how infe-rences from  real-life experiences are made. Case studies have low reliability because people and organizations change (case study generates data on real-life events, has a low probability of consistency and  cannot be re-plicated). As a result of the lack of validity and low relia-bility claims about cause and effect are not credible. And if findings cannot be generalized beyond the immediate inquiry, they cannot really inform a broader theory. In short, case study research is a waste of time, resources and effort. Few case studies exist in main-stream, peer-reviewed journals.Case Studies as Teaching ToolSo why the diatribe if it is a futile exercise? Why or how are case studies important in business and manage-ment? They are certainly important for the student ex-perience with regards to masters and undergraduate dissertations. Also,  as mentioned at the outset, the case study is a key pedagogical tool. Initially introduced in the 1920s by Harvard Business School, the case study grew to be the hallmark of business and management education.The problem, however, is that there is little reference material for students given the absence of case study research in peer-reviewed journals. Not surprisingly stu-dents do not naturally gravitate to seminal texts such as Eisenhardt (1989)  or Yin (1984). Research proposals fail to include a plan on how the data will be collected and analyzed while dissertations are often superficial and lack any form of triangulation. This is not, of course, solely the result of lack of exemplars within academic li-terature. But their  absence does not help and we are, in this sense, doing a dis-service to a key stakeholder.The problem  is further illustrated when looking at the sources and focus of teaching case studies. As part of a previous research project into the introduction of the MBA in Mexico City, I identified all the teaching case studies that  dealt with Mexico, Mexican companies or companies doing business in Mexico between 1946 CONTRIBUCIONES CIENTÍFICAS Y TECNOLÓGICAS  15and 2005 (Bátiz-Lazo 2013). Results suggested that fo-reign universities were the main authors of teaching case studies. I am sure there was some local produc-tion,  probably in Spanish. Yet these contributions have not been systematically collected or deposited at what is now known as  The Case Centre (www.thecasecentre.org). A content analysis of the same set of teaching ca-ses by area of knowledge (as categorised by Case Cen-tre) resulted in the topic with greatest incidence being “Growth Strategy” (28%), which was followed by “Doing Business in Mexico” (14%) and “Parent / Subsidiary Re-lations” (13%). The picture that forms when taking the-se results together is that the main pedagogical tool in business and management helps students understand the viewpoint  of a multinational entering or growing in Mexico (and by extension Latin America). Method and Methodology in Business HistoryBroadly speaking business history is interested in do-cumenting the emergence and evolution of the people, organisations, organisational practices, routines, and doctrines that form the basis of and/or regulate capita-lism. In Europe and certainly in the UK, business history emanates from scholars sitting in business schools, and as such it coexists with the disciplines, views and (con-tested) research agendas of business and management. There are, of course, a number of other scholars in Eco-nomics, History and the Liberal Arts. For simplicity and given the nature of the workshop, let’s assume they pri-marily co-exist alongside other areas of business and management. Hence the importance of explaining me-thod and methodology to other scholars within a school of management2.  At one level, a business history risks rendering   the con-cept of capitalism itself null and void (Hahn 2015). But we will leave aside the discussion of whether business historians are preachers of neo-liberalism for the mo-ment. Let’s just say that in contrast to economists’ aims of informing and possibly influencing public policy, bu-siness history (for some of its authors’ at least) is forward looking, and its purpose is to change business practices and inform business strategy.At another level, business history research emphasises stories of success as well as developments between 1800 and 1950 in Europe, Japan and North America, while contributions from other eras, Africa and Latin America are few and far between (e.g. Davila 2013; Verhoef 2015). Research is largely  focussed on single company, market or industry case studies around themes related to the industrial (r)evolution and globalisation. Its method is primarily locating and inductively analysing surviving business records which are then triangulated with other sources including contemporary records, newspapers, manuals, magazines, marketing material, biographies, diaries, speeches, regulation, government documents or correspondence, maps, industry studies by consultants, pictures and for the most recent cases: videos, voice and music recordings as well as (semi structured) interviews and oral histories.  This list is by no means exhaustive but gives  a flavour of the multiplicity of source material3. Business history is not void of conceptual frameworks.  Like case studies in business and management, business history research values and acknowledges a particular conceptual framework but  is not limited by it, nor  is it usually interested in contrasting the validity of a concep-tual construct with empirical evidence. Instead it aims to bring back empirical evidence to inform and amplify conceptual understandings.At the same time, business history research can and will value documenting a particular moment when  its 2  I make no distinction between the terms ‘business school’ and ‘school of management’.3  Here I am making a distinction between an interview and an oral history that might not exist in practice, in which the former engages with the subject based on a number of pre-specified and theory laden questions whereas the latter allows the subject absolute freedom to engage with the topic. 16  CONTRIBUCIONES CIENTÍFICAS Y TECNOLÓGICASimportance is clear. This can be  “de novo” or subject to reinterpretation because of new evidence and/or simply because research questions are contingent on  the time, place and social context.  No  researcher can be entirely objective .Values, ethics, morals and conceptual inclination matter and are embraced by the business history research agen-da.It should be clear by now that an important difference, between research business history and  case studies in business and management research, is that business his-tory is not cross sectional, mainly a qualitative narrative and seldom quantitative (although that is not always the case for accounting or financial history which for the sake of argument we will not consider in depth). It is im-portant to note that business history is not longitudinal either. It does not follow a particular subject across time. Instead it reconstructs (an imperfect) reality from a mo-saic of sources and then will often move backwards and forwards in time; sideways to establish the context and meaning of the subject; or upwards and downwards to explore different organisational and social layers. Business history thus operates with the benefit of hind-sight. Admittedly it might emphasise stories of success. But  business history research reconstructs an imperfect reality4 to better understand why and how that reality took place and led to its known (or presumed known) consequences while accommodating the idea that every business decision has a past, present and future. Business decisions are not made in perfect markets but subject to  previous events, within a specific context, while actors have an expected, desirable or projected outcome in mind. In short, for business history a re-search hypothesis always results in eternally preliminary, imperfect and contestable knowledge.4  The usual rule of thumb is a span of  25 to 30  years , but then the history of the internet is much shorter than that! Business historians communicate their results through annual specialist conferences as well as by making their presence felt in larger general topic meetings (such as the American Economic Association, Academy of Ma-nagement or the European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS)). They produce contributions to peer-re-viewed outlets with greater success on topics  of a spe-cialist nature (that tend to have a low citation index gi-ven the widespread and complementary nature of the area of study) than on general management themes. In sharp contrast to scholars in business and management (and replicating traditions in History departments) edi-ted books and single author monographs (preferably published by a  “reputable” university press) also form an important element of their output.ConclusionsYin (1984) has been the main reference point within business and management for understanding case stu-dy research for the last thirty years. The longevity of this source bears witness not only to the quality of the text it-self but also to the difficulties and challenges in reaching consensus as to what constitutes a case study within that research tradition, that is, for main stream manage-ment research it is difficult to understand and typify the technique for collecting and/or analysing data within case studies. Readers cannot generally appreciate the research that is reported or how the ‘tools’ are used. At the same time, business history uses multiple sources of information. The case study is part and parcel of this re-search agenda. Nevertheless as far as research into Latin America is concerned, both business history and other areas of management research have failed to develop (or make widely available) teaching tools that look into the issues and challenges of Latin American companies, entrepreneurs and managers.CONTRIBUCIONES CIENTÍFICAS Y TECNOLÓGICAS  17References Bátiz-Lazo B. 2013. The adoption of US-Style bu-siness education in Mexico, 1945-2005. América Latina en la Historia Económica 20: 158 - 198.  Bryer R. 2006. Smith, Marx or Foucault in un-derstanding the British Industrial Revolution? A re-exa-mination of the management and accounting for capital and labour at the Carron Company 1759-1786. Accoun-ting, Organizations and Society 31 (8). Bucheli M, Wadhwani RD. 2014. Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Davila C. 2013. The current state of business history in Latin America. Australian Economic History Review 53: 109 - 120. de Jong A, Higgins DM. 2015. New Business His-tory?. Business History 57: 1 - 4. de Jong A, Higgins DM, van Drielc H. Towards a New Business History? Business History 57: 5 - 29.  Decker S. 2013. The silence of the archives: Post-colonialism and business history. Management and Or-ganisational History 8: 155 - 173. Decker S. 2014. Solid intentions: an archival eth-nography of corporate architecture and organizational remembering. Organization 21: 514 - 542. Decker S, Kipping M, Wadhwani RD. 2015. New business histories! plurality in business history research methods. Business History 57: 30 - 40.   Eisenhardt KM. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14: 532 - 550. Fleischman RK. 2000. Completing the triangle: Taylorism and the paradigms. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 13: 597 - 623.  Hahn B. 2015. Global review: empire of cotton and the half has never been told. Agricultural History 89: 482 - 486. Larsson M, Magnusson L, Ullenhag K. 2014. Scholarship in business history. Business History 56: 1 - 4.  Llewllyn S. 1992. The role of case study methods in management accounting research: A comment. Bri-tish Accounting Review 24: 173 - 191. Riege AM. 2003. Validity and reliability tests in case study research: A literature review with “Hands-On” applications for each research phase. Qualitative Mar-ket Research: An International Journal 6: 75 - 86. Rowlinson M, Hassard J, Decker S. 2014. Re-search strategies for organizational history: A dialogue between historical theory and organization theory. Aca-demy of Management Review 39: 250 - 274.  Smith A. 2014. Eh.Net Review: Organizationsin Time: History, Theory, Methods. fromhttp://eh.net/book_reviews/organizations-in-time-his-tory-theory-methods Verhoef, G. (2015). ‘Africa is open for business- what kind of business, where and by whom? An ex-ploration of the Business History of Africa’. U. Bocco-ni. Milan. Yin RK. 1984. Case study research: designand methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA. Yin RK. 1989. The Case Study Crisis: SomeAnswers. Administrative Science Quarterly 26: 58 - 65.

The Case Study Method and The Methodology of Business History

http://www.revistas.usach.cl/ojs/index.php/contribuciones/article/download/2493/2282/

The Case Study Method and The Methodology of Business History

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Contribuciones Científicas y Tecnológicas