1. Developing & Testing Theory with Comparative Case Studies Mauro F. Guillén (In collaboration with Anuja Gupta)

2. Comparative Case Studies N larger than one: –Going from one case to two cases makes a huge difference. It can be one case, but analyzed longitudinally. Long tradition of comparison in the social sciences, though not so much in management. Distinction between qualitative and quantitative is overdrawn, oversimplified, and, to a very large extent, fallacious.

3. Misconceptions about Comparative Case Studies They are good only for theory building, not for testing theory. They cannot help establish cause-effect relationships (internal validity). They are qualitative in nature. They do not comply with standard methodological requirements. They have limited generalizability (external validity). They are good for teaching but not for research. They are harder to get published.

4. Our Mission in Life Show that comparative case studies can be: –Useful for theory testing as well as theory building. –Every bit as rigorous as other types of research. Show that every research project can benefit from adopting a “comparative” approach or design. Help management scholars learn from sociologists, political scientists, and anthropologists.

5. Goals of Comparisons Theory building (à la Eisenhardt). Apply a general model to explain empirical instances. Use concepts to develop a meaningful empirical interpretation (interpretive method). Analyze causal regularities. Identify continuities and discontinuities. Validation. Nota bene: Importance attached to understanding historical processes and to establishing cause- effect relationships as they unfold over time. Theda Skocpol, ed., Vision and Method in Historical Sociology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984).

6. Types of Comparisons Structure of the comparison: –Longitudinal comparison of a single case study. –Matched comparisons (including natural experiments). –Variation-finding comparisons (larger N, but not matched). Levels of analysis: –Individuals (OB literature). –Decision situations (Vaughn, Allison). –Teams or groups (Perlow). –Organizational subunit or process (Zbaracki). –Organizations (Kanter, Lawrence & Lorsch, Kogut & Zander). –Clusters or networks (Powell et al.). –Industries (Westney, Benner & Tushman). –Regions (Saxenian). –Countries (Chandler, Useem, Cole, Porter, Murmann). –Global systems (Wallerstein, Gereffi).

7. Case Selection Random assignment? Difficult. Theory driven: –Matched case comparisons and natural experiments. –Most-significant case(s) design. –Most-similar cases that diverge. –Variation finding. –Standardized case comparisons (Walton 1973): Based on a stratified set of relevant independent variables (e.g. technology, size, culture, etc.). Collection of a broad range of data through systematic procedures. Strike a balance between in-depth analysis and systematic comparison. Convenience: –Access. –Language proficiency.

8. Three Classic Designs

9. Mauro F. Guillén, The Limits of Convergence (Princeton University Press, 2004).

10. Issues Internal validity (cause-effect). External validity (generalization). Better than single case studies. Comparison enables greater breadth without losing too much depth. Excellent for theory development. Also good for testing theory (see Ragin).

11. Basic Analytical Idea J. S. Mill’s (1843) methods of experimental inquiry: –Method of difference: A+B+C = Y. A+B = not Y. Therefore: A and B are necessary but not sufficient, while C is necessary but not sufficient. –Method of agreement: A+B = Y. A+C+D = Y. B+C = not Y. Therefore: A is necessary but not sufficient.

12. Fuzzy-Set Social Science Treat cases as configurations of different values for variables of interest. Define an outcome of interest. Use Boolean algorithms to arrive at generalizations about cause-effect relationships (i.e. configurations that bring about the outcome): necessary & sufficient conditions. Calculate how confident you can be about the generalizations. Charles C. Ragin, Fuzzy-Set Social Science (University of Chicago Press, 2000).

13. An Example of a Fuzzy-Set Case #X1X2X3Y 10111 20111 30110 40100 51000 … N

14. Probabilistic Criteria I When N>30, use a z test: z = [(P – p) – 1/2N] / [p(1 – p)/N] 1/2 N is the # of cases displaying the combination. P is the observed proportion of the outcome. p is the benchmark proportion:.50 or “more often than not sufficient”.65 or “usually sufficient”.80 or “almost always sufficient”

15. Probabilistic Criteria II When N<30, use a binomial probability test: b = [N!/(N-r)!] p r (1 – p) N-r N is the # of cases displaying the combination. r is the # of cases displaying the outcome. p is the benchmark proportion:.50 or “more often than not sufficient”.65 or “usually sufficient”.80 or “almost always sufficient”

17. Combining Methods Move beyond the qualitative/quantitative distinction. Comparative case studies can be every bit as rigorous as any other kind of research. Use a comparative design as the overall structure of your study. Within each case, collect large N data, conduct experiments, gather archival data, interview people in depth, organize focused groups, conduct an ethnography, etc. Draw conclusions from the overall comparative scheme, examining if: –Outcome & process hold across cases. –Outcome but not process is the same. –Different outcomes.

18. Some Basic References Burawoy, Michael. 1998. “The Extended Case Method.” Sociological Theory 16(1):4-33. Dibble, Vernon K. 1963. “Four types of inference from documents to events.” History and Theory 3(2):203-221. Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” Academy of Management Review 14(4):532-550. Mill, John Stuart. [1881] 1950. “Of the Four Methods of Experimental Inquiry.” In Philosophy of Scientific Method. Edited, with an introduction by Ernest Nagel. New York: Hafner, 211-233. Ragin, Charles C. 2000. Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Skocpol, Theda ed. 1984. Vision and Method in Historical Sociology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Smelser, Neil J. 1976. Comparative Methods in the Social Sciences. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Stinchcombe, Arthur L. [1968] 1987. Constructing Social Theories. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Tilly, Charles. 1984. Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons. New York: Russel Sage Foundation. Walton, John. 1973. "Standardized Case Comparison: Observations on Method in Comparative Sociology." In Michael Armer and Allen D. Grimshaw, eds., Comparative Social Research: Methodological Problems and Strategies. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 173-191. Yin, R.K. 1994. Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

19. Multiplicity of forms SingleMultiple Share of all instances OneIndividualizing Contrast specific instances of a given phenomenon as a means of grasping the peculiarities of each case. [Bendix; Dore; Westney; Saxenian] Encompassing Different instances in a system are compared so as to explain their characteristics as a function of their varying relationships to the system. [Wallerstein; Gereffi] All Universalizing Seeks to establish that every instance of a phenomenon follows essentially the same rule. [Rostow; Chandler; Kerr et al.] Variation finding Aims at establishing a principle of variation in the character or intensity of a phenomenon by examining systematic differences among instances. [Moore; Gerschenkron; Porter] Charles Tilly, Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1984), p. 81-83.

20. Models of Management Mauro F. Guillén, Models of Management (University of Chicago Press, 1994).

21. The Limits of Convergence

22. The Rise of Modernist Architecture Mauro F. Guillén, The Taylorized Beauty of the Mechanical (Princeton University Press, forthcoming).