2017
[BUILDING THEORIES]
Name
Student Number
Resident Campus
Assessment Title
Lecturer
TOPIC
The author “Kathleen M. Eisenhardt” in the paper titled as “Building theories from case study research” makes two contributions towards the theory formation from the given case study research (Ahire, 1996). One contribution of the paper is the “A roadmap” which helps in the formation of theories from the given case study research” along with other within the paper comes the “positioning theory” in terms of the formation of the case studies formulates from the larger prospect of social science research.”
As noted in paper the road map synthesizes the attribution of various researches such as Glaser and Strauss, 1967 which is based in the designing of theory formation along with the emphasis on the (Miles and Huberman, 1984) which takes into the key consideration of the qualitative methods & the work of the (Yin, 1981 &1984) which based on the designing of the case study research. It also throws a significant emphasis on the prior specification of constructs which are used within the cases along with the cross case analyses which takes into the account of the triangulation of multiple investigators along with including the roles of the given literature (Katheleen, 1989, P 533).
As observed in the paper Eisenhardt follows a process of building theories which center on below points. 1) To begin & Get Started.
2) while determining the Selected Cases
3) The inclusion of the crafting instruments & adhering to the protocols outlined.
4) Entering the field
5) Synchronization of the analyzed Data
6) Giving a shape to the hypothesis drawn
7) Enfolding a literature into the synopsis
8) Determining & reaching the closure.
In the building theories author Eisenhardt mentions on page 536 that “Finally and most importantly, theory-building research is begun as close as possible to the ideal of no theory under consideration and no hypotheses to test”. She explains the fact that the overlapping of the given data collections along with the analysis part along with the constant changing of the given data collections which can be described as the “flexible data collection.” The author further guides & explains the data collection methods which are imperative in the inclusion of the study in gaining information up to the maximum levels (Assael, 1984). After which the shaping of the hypotheses is considered to part of the iterative process which helps in building a framework with the given data along with the correctness of the framework due to which the construct blends with the data well. This is also presumably described as a sharpening the constructs. Then the inclusion of the creation of the qualitative data is used to understand the construct part which throws an emphasis on the reasoning behind the emergent relationships & its requirements. The last step is the end part or closure part which is concluded through the iterative process in reaching the theoretical saturation (Dakin, 1993).
In the research paper, one can understand the motivation of the author Eisenhardt which is believed to be the confusion distinctively upon the qualitative data along with the inclusion of the inductive logic and the case study researchers. The author was also able to diagnose that there is a bit confusion surrounding the process of building a theory from the given cases along with the special emphasis on the central inductive process blending it with the role of literature. Also, while understanding the synopsis one could identify the gap within the studies with regards to the theory building research which can be useful & with terms of strengths and weakness while making a use of the case studies for building theories.
Gap in the literature
An established determinant of the formation of theory is dependent upon various emergent concepts along with establishing theories or drawing hypotheses related to the extant literature. This can be concluded based on the similarity & contradiction. The first gap identified is the examining the literature in terms of determining the conflicts with the emergent theories is based upon the two validation points which are if the researchers constantly ignore the conflicting reasoning which deviates upon the finding a concrete reasons than the confidence in the findings will be greatly reduced (Davis, 1984). Such as what the readers will presumably assume that results are highly invalid which can establish a challenge towards the internal validity or if we say it’s correct then we can say that idiosyncratic in terms of the specific outlined case researches which would become a challenge with regards in generalizability. Second gap is in terms of the conflicting literature also establishes an opportunity to explore. This generates more creative ideas & makes the researchers think out of the box in order to figure out the conflicting results (Deaton, 1980).
Research Process
While doing an in-depth research we need to have a set of research questions which would help us in establishing a research focus (Ennis, 2002). One can get overwhelmed with the given volume of data. It’s empirical to determine the research questions in order to identify the types of samples along with drawing a significant relevance in the Relevant data which needs to be collected. Priori specification is an ideal way to construct & help in shaping the brief initial designing when it comes to building a theory research, upon which the study progresses & finally the researcher has a strong ground in drawing a relevancy of the empirical grounding which surrounds the emergent theory (Gorman, 1997).
Selecting Cases
It is important to establish a selected cases while building theories centred around the case studies. As it is quite evident that hypothesis- testing research, it is important to have a population upon which one can formulate a set of entities which will be useful for the research. After which the sample is taken. It is substantially important to select the size of a population which can control extraneous variation which accordingly helps in determining the limits in terms of the generalizing the findings (Hawkins, 2010). From the given paper one needs to also identify the cases which can be chosen from a theoretical perspective & not from a statistical point of views. Based upon which the cases can be chosen to which can be based upon the previous cases or may also include the emergent theory, the other theoretical categories can also be chosen along with the examples of polar types (Jonassen, 2000).
Findings
From the given paper, the identified strengths & weakness of this technique applied to the building theory. The strengths of this are:
- While bringing the ideas of the generating novel theory (Nelson, 1970).
- One can figure the emergent theory which can be testable and falsifiable.
- One can establish theory is correlated to follow the empirically valid.
Weaknesses of the case studies are as follows:
- The identified theoretical evidence is overly complex in terms of the tendency to gather all the relevant data.
- Given resulting of the theory can be sleeked & idiosyncratic along with it, can determine it’s not generalizable (Paul, 2001).
Implications
In terms of the final implication of building the theories from the given case studies which come from the concepts, along with the conceptual framework & taking the other points such as propositions or can also in calculate the possible midrange theory. While considering the flip side we can evaluate the final product can be disappointing as we can draw a significant conclusion as that the researcher has only produced similar prior theory along with it no clear indications of the patterns in the inclusion of the data (Noe, 2006).
One can evaluate that the implications of the building the theory from the give case study research can be quite strikingly iterative one (Paul, 2006). The strengths which are identified is the firstly the creation of the generating novel theory along with the figuring the emergent theory which can be testable along with the measurable & hypothesis which can determine as false. The first significant highlight from cases is its correlation of the generating novel theory. It has also been seen that valid theory is comparatively high as the theory-formation process related with the reasoning as per the resultant theory in relation to the empirical observation.
Evaluation
The paper was quite well written & was easy to understand. It has a contradicting viewpoint in terms of the initiating the theory after which one needs to go in-depth experimentation in order to falsify the hypotheses which come as a convenient way of generating theory. The author also uses the simplified approach of gathering the data after which the formulation of the theory begins. It was testable with the help of various methods in order to create original data.
It is quite important to reach closure which takes into the two issues which are when to pause while adding the cases & when to pause iterating in between the given theory along with the data. As though, issue researchers begins to stop add on the cases in terms of balancing with the theoretical saturation (Peter, 1999). It is a point at which the researchers have a limited incremental learning as they have seen the observing phenomena before. When it comes to an application the theoretical saturation often combines the time & money in order to determine the case collection ends. In the highlight second closure issue, again we need to determine the saturation point as it takes into the consideration of the iteration process to stop due to the limited scope of the incremental improvement to theory (Watson, 2000).
Reference List
Ahire, S. L., Golhar, D. Y., & Waller, M. A. (1996). Development and validation of TQM implementation constructs. Decision Sciences, 27(1), 23-56.
Assael, H. (1984). Consumer behavior and marketing activities. Kent Pub. Co..
Dakin, G. (1993). Shaping the future: business design through information technology. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 43(9), 1249-1250.
Davis, K., & Frederick, W. C. (1984). Business and Society: Management, public policy, ethics. McGraw-Hill Companies.
Deaton, A., &Muellbauer, J. (1980). Economics and consumer behavior. Cambridge University press.
Ennis, R. H. (2002). A concept of critical thinking. Harvard educational review.
Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., & King, W. (1997). Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small business management: a ten-year literature review. International small business journal, 15(3), 56-77.
Hawkins, D. I., Best, R. J., & Coney, K. A. (2010). Consumer behavior. Implications for marketing strategy, 5.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Prentice Hall.
Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. Journal of political economy, 78(2), 311-329.
Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Human resource management: Gaining a competitive advantage.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2001). The miniature guide to critical thinking: Concepts & tools. Foundation Critical Thinking.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical Thinking Reading & Writing Test. Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Peter, J. P., Olson, J. C., &Grunert, K. G. (1999). Consumer behavior and marketing strategy (pp. 122-123). London: McGraw-Hill.
Watson, G. (2000). Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.