New SNSF Grant awarded to Michael Gibbert and collaborators for their project on the impact of context analysis in case studies in management and organizational research
Institute of Marketing and Communication Management
Title of the project:
Mutatis mutandis: How do Analytical Moves to (un)silence context influence article citation and policy impact of case studies in management and organizational research?
Summary:
There is an increasing realization that heeding context, defined as the set of relevant circumstances in which a phenomenon unfolds, is of fundamental importance for management and organization studies (MOS). The current state of the art, however, is inconsistent in terms of its advice on how context should be integrated. Some approaches (a) silence it with the objective to produce context free, generalizable knowledge, and others (b) unsilence it to provide contextualized explanation and achieve internal validity through the search of alternative explanations.
There are benefits in both approaches, leaving researchers with difficult dilemmas. These arise not just when building theory, but also when trying to ensure broader relevance, as research can be perceived as too context-specific to be useful, and yet to lack the specificity needed to offer actionable guidance. Our preliminary evidence suggests that researchers undertaking qualitative field studies use a variety of Analytical Moves (AMs) in an effort to manage these dilemmas.
The aim of the proposed project is, firstly, to unpack exactly how authors reconcile the two approaches in their efforts to provide more rigorous insights into empirical phenomena. We do this separately for single- and multiple-case studies. Since, in the former context can be unsilenced by way of rich, detailed analysis and ‘thick’ description, and in the latter silenced in ‘controlled’ comparisons, we expect AMs to differ across the two designs. Secondly, we seek to capture the relative benefits of different strategies for addressing the dilemmas of context as measured by citations in both academic and policy literature. We further seek to understand how AMs are ‘translated’ in the citation process, by exploring how citing authors integrate a given article’s AMs into their own treatment of context and to assess the extent to which the intentions of cited authors align with the citing article’s own AMs.
To address these aims, we will conduct a systematic review of qualitative and mixed method single- and multiple-case study research published between 2014 and 2023. The case studies will be drawn from a sample of journals based on publication-level classification into MOS fields and comprising two clusters: (1) high-profile theory-oriented journals, (2) policy-oriented journals. We expect a final sample of around 800 papers across the two clusters. To assess citation count, we will collect scholarly citations using Web of Science and policy citations using Overton for all single- and multiple-case studies and look for correlations with AMs in each type of case study. We will further collect all citing works for a subsample of papers and subject these to content analysis to capture how the case studies in our sample are cited, whether their context is addressed in citing works, and whether it is silenced or unsilenced when referenced by others. Finally, we will interview the authors of the subsample of papers to explore which factors influence their approach to context, and to what extent they align their choice of Analytical Moves to their publication outlet or the audience they seek to address.
First, the project will contribute significantly to the methodological understanding of how to deal with dilemmas in treating context in qualitative research in MOS and social sciences more generally. Second, it will also encourage scholars to make more informed methodological choices in order to reach their target audience both within and outside academia. Third, it will help policy makers appreciate the relevance of scholarly research better.
There are benefits in both approaches, leaving researchers with difficult dilemmas. These arise not just when building theory, but also when trying to ensure broader relevance, as research can be perceived as too context-specific to be useful, and yet to lack the specificity needed to offer actionable guidance. Our preliminary evidence suggests that researchers undertaking qualitative field studies use a variety of Analytical Moves (AMs) in an effort to manage these dilemmas.
The aim of the proposed project is, firstly, to unpack exactly how authors reconcile the two approaches in their efforts to provide more rigorous insights into empirical phenomena. We do this separately for single- and multiple-case studies. Since, in the former context can be unsilenced by way of rich, detailed analysis and ‘thick’ description, and in the latter silenced in ‘controlled’ comparisons, we expect AMs to differ across the two designs. Secondly, we seek to capture the relative benefits of different strategies for addressing the dilemmas of context as measured by citations in both academic and policy literature. We further seek to understand how AMs are ‘translated’ in the citation process, by exploring how citing authors integrate a given article’s AMs into their own treatment of context and to assess the extent to which the intentions of cited authors align with the citing article’s own AMs.
To address these aims, we will conduct a systematic review of qualitative and mixed method single- and multiple-case study research published between 2014 and 2023. The case studies will be drawn from a sample of journals based on publication-level classification into MOS fields and comprising two clusters: (1) high-profile theory-oriented journals, (2) policy-oriented journals. We expect a final sample of around 800 papers across the two clusters. To assess citation count, we will collect scholarly citations using Web of Science and policy citations using Overton for all single- and multiple-case studies and look for correlations with AMs in each type of case study. We will further collect all citing works for a subsample of papers and subject these to content analysis to capture how the case studies in our sample are cited, whether their context is addressed in citing works, and whether it is silenced or unsilenced when referenced by others. Finally, we will interview the authors of the subsample of papers to explore which factors influence their approach to context, and to what extent they align their choice of Analytical Moves to their publication outlet or the audience they seek to address.
First, the project will contribute significantly to the methodological understanding of how to deal with dilemmas in treating context in qualitative research in MOS and social sciences more generally. Second, it will also encourage scholars to make more informed methodological choices in order to reach their target audience both within and outside academia. Third, it will help policy makers appreciate the relevance of scholarly research better.
