Premium
Are rigor and transparency enough? Review and future directions for case studies in technology and innovation Management
Author(s) -
Elsahn Ziad,
Callagher Lisa,
Husted Kenneth,
Korber Stefan,
Siedlok Frank
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
randd management
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.253
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1467-9310
pISSN - 0033-6807
DOI - 10.1111/radm.12412
Subject(s) - transparency (behavior) , pluralism (philosophy) , management science , qualitative research , consistency (knowledge bases) , rigour , engineering ethics , sociology , data science , epistemology , knowledge management , political science , computer science , social science , engineering , law , philosophy , artificial intelligence
It is crucial to assess how technology and innovation management (TIM) scholars use case‐based research. Our study provides a theoretical systematic review of qualitative case‐based articles published in 31 TIM journals from 2013 to 2018. Our analysis of 311 articles uncovers patterns regarding rigor (including case justification and selection), transparency (including data collection and analytical methods), and paradigmatic consistency and pluralism. Our findings show some evidence of emerging pluralism in how TIM researchers perform qualitative case studies, but also highlight some worrying trends: paradigmatic inconsistencies, lack of transparency, and over‐reliance on specific approaches, all of which affect the value of case study research. We provide methodological guidelines for improving the use of qualitative case research in TIM.