Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Developing & Testing Theory with Comparative Case Studies Mauro F. Guillén (In collaboration with Anuja Gupta) 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. 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. 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. 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 causeeffect relationships as they unfold over time. Theda Skocpol, ed., Vision and Method in Historical Sociology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984). 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). 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. Three Classic Designs Table 1: Bendix, Geertz and Dore Compare Bendix 1956 Timing: Inception of industry Bureaucratized industry Geertz 1963 Organization: Purely traditional Firm-type Dore 1973 Technology: Social position of entrepreneurs and managers: Autonomous class Subordinate to government control England Russia United States East Germany Individualist Social structure: Group-based (seka) Javanese bazaar (pasar) Balinese cooperatives Javanese stores Balinese business concerns Market-oriented Social structure: Organization-oriented Small-batch English Electric’s Bradford plant Hitachi’s Furusato plant Mass production English Electric’s Liverpool plant Hitachi’s Taga plant Mauro F. Guillén, The Limits of Convergence (Princeton University Press, 2004). 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). 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. 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). An Example of a Fuzzy-Set Case # 1 2 3 4 5 … N X1 0 0 0 0 1 X2 1 1 1 1 0 X3 1 1 1 0 0 Y 1 1 0 0 0 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” Probabilistic Criteria II • When N<30, use a binomial probability test: b = [N!/(N-r)!] pr (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” 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. 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. Multiplicity of forms One Share of all instances Single Multiple Individualizing Encompassing Contrast specific instances of a given phenomenon as a means of grasping the peculiarities of each case. [Bendix; Dore; Westney; Saxenian] 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] Universalizing Variation finding All Seeks to establish that every instance of a phenomenon follows essentially the same rule. [Rostow; Chandler; Kerr et al.] 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. Models of Management _____________________________________________________________________ Dominant Pattern of Politics: Liberal Democracy Corporatism ModernistTechnocratic United States Germany Characteristic Mode of Thought: TraditionalGreat Britain Spain Humanist _____________________________________________________________________ Mauro F. Guillén, Models of Management (University of Chicago Press, 1994). The Limits of Convergence Table 8.1: Development Paths and Organizational Change in Argentina, South Korea, and Spain Level of Inward Flows: High (Pragmatic) Level of Outward Flows: High (Modernizing) Low (Populist) SPAIN Pragmatic-Modernizing: HIGH: Allow Imports & Inward investment HIGH: Export-led growth & Outward investment ARGENTINA Pragmatic-Populist: HIGH: Allow Imports & Inward investment LOW: Import substitution & Local investment Organizational forms: Foreign MNEs; SMEs; Large oligopolistic firms Organizational forms: Foreign MNEs; Business Groups; some SMEs Organized labor’s ideologies: Pro-globalization, MNEs = partners Organized labor’s ideologies: Anti-globalization, MNEs = necessary evils 4 1 3 2 Low (Nationalist) SOUTH KOREA Nationalist-Modernizing: LOW: Protectionism & Local ownership HIGH: Export-led growth & Outward investment INITIAL CONDITIONS, CIRCA 1950 Nationalist-Populist: LOW: Protectionism & Local ownership LOW: Import substitution & Local investment Organizational forms: Business groups; State-owned enterprises Organizational forms: State-owned enterprises; Large oligopolistic firms Organized labor’s ideologies: Pro-globalization, MNEs = arm’s length collaborators Organized labor’s ideologies: Anti-globalization, MNEs = villains Note: MNEs stands for multinational enterprises; SMEs stands for small and medium enterprises. The Rise of Modernist Architecture Table 7.1: A Cross-National Comparison of the Rise of Machine-Age Modernist Architecture Variable: Industrialization Sociopolitical upheaval Class dynamics (rise of the workerconsumer & mass consumption) New sponsors (industrial firms & the state) Professionalization of architecture linked to engineering Strength of the scientific management movement Outcome: Modernist architecture Britain Pioneer of the Industrial Revolution, though not of mass production. No: Victorian and Edwardian stability. Early, which thwarted modernism in favor of kitsch. Did not play a role. No: Weak link; belated adoption of Beaux-Arts. Weak until 1940s. Late and timid: 1940s. France Early industrial growth. Germany Late, but successful industrialization. Italy Late industrialization in the North. Russia Relative laggard, except in certain locations. Spain Laggard. Mexico Laggard. Brazil Laggard. Argentina Laggard. U.S.A. Most advanced country in mass production. No: Relative stability since the 1870 Commune. Relatively early: 1920s. Yes: Defeat, revolution (1918), and inflation. Yes: Fascist Revolution of 1922. Yes: Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Yes: Social revolution, 1936-39. Yes: Vargas’s Estado Novo of 1930. No: Haphazard transition to mass politics, 1916-46. No: Constitutional stability; neutralized labor unrest. Late: 1930s and 50s. Late: 1950s. Late: 1950s. Late: 1960s. Yes: Revolution of 1910-17, and socially progressive state. Late: 1950s. Late: 1950s. Late: 1950s. Relatively early, which thwarted modernism in favor of kitsch. Played a role, but belatedly. Strong role. Strong role. Strong role. Weak role until 1930s. Yes: Strong and longstanding link to engineering. Strong. Yes: Strong and longstanding link to engineering. Strong. Yes: Linked to engineering. Strong role of Strong role the state, not of the state. of firms. Yes: Initially based on Beaux-Arts, but influenced by engineering since late 1920s or early 1930s. Weak role. No: Clash between Beaux-Arts & technical traditions. Intermediate. Weak role, except late 1930s. No: Strong Beaux-Arts influence. No: Strong Beaux-Arts influence. Yes initially, but Beaux-Arts influence, 1910s-20s. Strong. Weak until 1940s. Intermediate. Strong. Weak. Strong: pioneer. Early beginnings, but late consolidation. Early pioneer; heyday in the 1920s. Early pioneer; heyday in the 1930s. Early pioneer; heyday in the 1920s. Late and short-lived: 1933-39. Relatively early for its region: late 1920s. Relatively early for its region: 1930s. Late, timid, and shortlived: late 1930s. Early pioneer, but late heyday in the 1930s. Mauro F. Guillén, The Taylorized Beauty of the Mechanical (Princeton University Press, forthcoming).