Re: Perspectives on KM World conference - case studies #case-studies

Murray Jennex

You are right about case studies.  Many think like you say, talk to someone or read an article or two and you've done a case study.  This is what I mean by rigor of method.  Case study methodology is pretty much defined by Yin who preaches convergence of data, i.e. you do interviews, review organizational documents, observe, perhaps survey the organization, look at performance data, etc. and where all these data streams converge is where you have confirmed something.  To publish case studies the authors need to delineate what data streams they have looked at, how they are analyzed, and then what it means.  Many authors do not code the interviews they do nor try to quantify scoring or interpretation of documents or performance standards, these are poor case studies. 
This is probably one of the major differences between case study research in the US, which pushes the Yin approach, and Europe and Australia which haven't done so until recently, i.e. when pushed by journal publishers.  I have reviewed and rejected many articles who simply tell a story without providing the methods used to collect and analyze that data during the case study.
I know this has been a long and possibly tedious thread, but I think we are now getting to the heart of what I was referring to by harping on rigorous methodology for getting reflective research published.  thanks...murray

Join to automatically receive all group messages.