qrom cover (i).

qxd

02/11/2007

09:23

Page 1

ISSN 1746-5648

Volume 2 Number 3 2007

Qualitative Research in
Organizations and
Management
An International Journal

Special issue on case studies

Guest Editors: Bill Lee, Paul M. Collier and
John Cullen

www.emeraldinsight.com

Qualitative Research in
Organizations and
Management:

ISSN 1746-5648
Volume 2
Number 3
2007

An International Journal
Special issue on case studies
Guest Editors
Bill Lee, Paul M. Collier and John Cullen

Access this journal online _________________________

167

Editorial advisory board __________________________

168

GUEST EDITORIAL
Reflections on the use of case studies in the accounting,
management and organizational disciplines
Bill Lee, Paul M. Collier and John Cullen _____________________________

169

A researchers tale: dealing with epistemological

divergence
Janet Bryant and Barbara Lasky __________________________________

179

The singular view in management case studies

Sue Llewellyn and Deryl Northcott _________________________________

194

Introducing strong structuration theory for

informing qualitative case studies in organization,
management and accounting research
Lisa Jack and Ahmed Kholeif_____________________________________

Access this journal electronically

The current and past volumes of this journal are available at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5648.htm
You can also search more than 150 additional Emerald journals in
Emerald Management Xtra (www.emeraldinsight.com)
See page following contents for full details of what your access includes.

208

CONTENTS

CONTENTS
continued

Case study research and network theory:

birds of a feather
Evert Gummesson______________________________________________

226

Obituary _________________________________________

249

www.emeraldinsight.com/qrom.htm
As a subscriber to this journal, you can benefit from instant,
electronic access to this title via Emerald Management Xtra. Your
access includes a variety of features that increase the value of
your journal subscription.

Structured abstracts
Emerald structured abstracts provide consistent, clear and
informative summaries of the content of the articles, allowing
faster evaluation of papers.

How to access this journal electronically

Additional complimentary services available

To benefit from electronic access to this journal, please contact

support@emeraldinsight.com A set of login details will then be
provided to you. Should you wish to access via IP, please
provide these details in your e-mail. Once registration is
completed, your institution will have instant access to all articles
through the journals Table of Contents page at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5648.htm More information
about the journal is also available at www.emeraldinsight.com/
qrom.htm

Your access includes a variety of features that add to the

functionality and value of your journal subscription:

Our liberal institution-wide licence allows everyone within your

institution to access your journal electronically, making your
subscription more cost-effective. Our web site has been
designed to provide you with a comprehensive, simple system
that needs only minimum administration. Access is available via
IP authentication or username and password.

E-mail alert services

These services allow you to be kept up to date with the latest
additions to the journal via e-mail, as soon as new material
enters the database. Further information about the services
available can be found at www.emeraldinsight.com/alerts

Emerald online training services

Visit www.emeraldinsight.com/training and take an Emerald
online tour to help you get the most from your subscription.

Key features of Emerald electronic journals

Automatic permission to make up to 25 copies of individual
articles
This facility can be used for training purposes, course notes,
seminars etc. This only applies to articles of which Emerald owns
copyright. For further details visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
copyright
Online publishing and archiving
As well as current volumes of the journal, you can also gain
access to past volumes on the internet via Emerald Management
Xtra. You can browse or search these databases for relevant
articles.
Key readings
This feature provides abstracts of related articles chosen by the
journal editor, selected to provide readers with current awareness
of interesting articles from other publications in the field.
Non-article content
Material in our journals such as product information, industry
trends, company news, conferences, etc. is available online and
can be accessed by users.
Reference linking
Direct links from the journal article references to abstracts of the
most influential articles cited. Where possible, this link is to the
full text of the article.
E-mail an article
Allows users to e-mail links to relevant and interesting articles to
another computer for later use, reference or printing purposes.

Xtra resources and collections

When you register your journal subscription online, you will gain
access to Xtra resources for Librarians, Faculty, Authors,
Researchers, Deans and Managers. In addition you can access
Emerald Collections, which include case studies, book reviews,
guru interviews and literature reviews.

Emerald Research Connections

An online meeting place for the research community where
researchers present their own work and interests and seek other
researchers for future projects. Register yourself or search our
database of researchers at www.emeraldinsight.com/
connections

Choice of access
Electronic access to this journal is available via a number of
channels. Our web site www.emeraldinsight.com is the
recommended means of electronic access, as it provides fully
searchable and value added access to the complete content of
the journal. However, you can also access and search the article
content of this journal through the following journal delivery
services:
EBSCOHost Electronic Journals Service
ejournals.ebsco.com
Informatics J-Gate
www.j-gate.informindia.co.in
Ingenta
www.ingenta.com
Minerva Electronic Online Services
www.minerva.at
OCLC FirstSearch
www.oclc.org/firstsearch
SilverLinker
www.ovid.com
SwetsWise
www.swetswise.com

Emerald Customer Support

For customer support and technical help contact:
E-mail support@emeraldinsight.com
Web www.emeraldinsight.com/customercharter
Tel +44 (0) 1274 785278
Fax +44 (0) 1274 785201

QROM
2,3

168

Qualitative Research in
Organizations and Management:
An International Journal
Vol. 2 No. 3, 2007
p. 168
# Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1746-5648

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Professor Howard S. Becker

USA

Professor Michael Myers

University of Auckland, New Zealand

Professor Alan Bryman

University of Leicester, UK

Professor Anne de Bruin

Massey University, New Zealand

Professor Brendan ODwyer

Amsterdam Graduate Business School,
The Netherlands
Dr Asta Pundziene
ISM University of Management and Economics,
Lithuania

Dr Ardha Danieli
University of Warwick, UK

Professor John Rodwell

Macquarie University, Australia

Dr Joanne Duberley
University of Birmingham, UK

Professor David Silverman

Goldsmiths College and Kings College, London, UK

Dr David Fryer
University of Stirling, UK
Professor Yiannis Gabriel
University of London, London, UK
Professor Evert Gummesson
Stockholm University, Sweden
Professor Chris Humphrey
University of Manchester, UK
Professor Antonio Mutti
University of Pavia, Italy

Professor Chris Steyaert

University of St Gallen, Switzerland

Anna Buehring
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK

Professor Richard Thorpe

University of Leeds, UK
Professor John van Maanen
MIT Sloan School of Management, USA
Dr Margaret Vickers
University of Western Sydney, Australia

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5648.htm

GUEST EDITORIAL

Reflections on the use of case

studies in the accounting,
management and organizational
disciplines

Guest editorial

169

Bill Lee
University of Sheffield Management School, Sheffield, UK

Paul M. Collier
Monash University, Clayton, Australia, and

John Cullen
University of Sheffield Management School, Sheffield, UK
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explain the background to the special issue and to provide
an introduction to the articles on case studies included in the issue.
Design/methodology/approach The paper uses a review of developments in both the qualitative
tradition and case studies in management research to provide a backdrop for the articles that are
included in the issue. The articles discuss: the merits of unique cases and singular forms of evidence
within a single case; the comparability of case studies with tools in other areas; and methods of
theorising from case studies.
Findings The merits of case studies have often been understated. The articles in this issue
highlight a broader variety of uses of case study research than is commonly recognized.
Originality/value This guest editorial introduces the papers in this issue, which may be read
either as individual contributions that have merits per se, or as part of a collection that this
introductory paper helps to knit together.
Keywords Case studies, Qualitative research
Paper type General review

Introduction
Case studies have emerged as an increasingly important qualitative approach in many
management disciplines (Gummesson, 2000, p. 88; Scapens, 2004), despite the
continued dominance of survey methods and statistical rationales of research in
different branches of management, including finance (Bessant et al., 2003, p. 55) and
marketing (Gummesson, 2000, p. 90). The capacity of case studies to draw from
different data sources, to allow several levels of simultaneous analysis of the dynamics
in a single setting (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 534) creates the potential for a richer
understanding of organizational phenomena than can be conveyed by statistical
analysis.
The richness of the data also makes empirically researched case studies extremely
important in teaching. Mahoney (1997) suggested that although academic teaching and

Qualitative Research in Organizations

and Management: An International
Journal
Vol. 2 No. 3, 2007
pp. 169-178
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1746-5648
DOI 10.1108/17465640710835337

QROM
2,3

170

research are often seen as joined yet divergent interests and pursuits, the two are
inextricably intertwined. This requirement to go beyond just publishing research in
academic journals received support from both Humphrey (2001) and Roberts (2003).
Humphrey argued that if we want to effect real accounting practice reform, then we
must disseminate our research further than just publishing in academic journals. This
point is further emphasised in Roberts (2003) report on the review of research
assessment that stresses the need to disseminate research beyond the academic peer
group. Cullen et al. (2004) provided an illustration of the use of an empirically
researched and narratively constructed case study that facilitated a powerful interface
between research, would-be practitioners and practice itself. The richness of the
material as a representation of organisational reality is important here and the strength
of doing qualitative field studies (Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, p. 832) are that they
avoid thinning out the data beyond the point where it loses its specificity and becomes
bland. Empirically researched case studies therefore have the potential to contribute
to the development of both theory and practice.
The capacity of empirical case studies to complement a range of epistemological
traditions, including interpretivist approaches, has been recognized by a number of
authors. For example, Boland and Pondy (1983, p. 223) suggest that research through
case studies involves an implicit rejection of some perspectives that rely on an
objectively knowable, empirically verifiable reality. Despite such understanding,
there is a danger that the dominance of a particular epistemological tradition namely
positivism in research more generally, has skewed case studies development and
usage. To some extent, this may be seen by looking at the pattern of development of
the literature on case studies. For example, Lee (1999, p. 15) reports that in a review of
articles that employed qualitative research and were published in leading American
journals, Yins (1984, 1989, 2003) series of editions of his book on case studies featured
prominently. Whatever the merits of Yins books and there are many Yin, like
other authors (Jankowicz, 2005, pp. 231-2) who adopt a similar stance, tends to define a
narrow range of uses for case studies.
(Yin 2003, p. 3; Scapens, 1990, 2004) defines three uses for case studies: exploratory,
descriptive and explanatory. Unfortunately, the majority of these uses are best
understood as poor relations to positivistic, quantitative research. Exploratory case
studies tend to be conducted as preliminary research in advance of wide-scale surveys
to map out the themes for the subsequent research. Descriptive case studies are often
used to expand on trends and themes already discovered by survey research. It is only
the explanatory case that seeks to derive a detailed understanding of a particular
phenomenon where the case is not seen as ancillary to more quantitative methods. Yet,
as Gummesson (2000, p. 85) states, this third use of case studies is looked on with
scepticism, or sometimes even horror, by mainstream business school professors.
Such scepticism may create fear amongst new academics and discourage their
selection of explanatory case studies (Humphrey and Lee, 2004a, p. xxv).
Fortunately, there are counter forces and counter trends to those generated by the
scepticism of some management academics. Manifestations of these forces and trends
include the different strategies adopted by other management researchers to help
advance qualitative research. Recognising the limitations of using criteria associated
with positivistic research for evaluating qualitative studies (Cassell et al., 2006; Ahrens
and Chapman, 2006), one long-standing strategy has been to formulate criteria

appropriate for assessing and as a corollary demonstrating the quality of

qualitative research (Guba and Lincoln, 1989; Johnson et al., 2006; Seale, 1999). Another
strategy has been manifest in accounting where Humphrey and Lee (2004b) have
extended the traditions established by Bell and Newby (1977) in sociology and Bryman
(1988) in organizational Studies, by compiling a collection that demystifies all aspects
of the qualitative-research process (Humphrey and Lee, 2004c, p. 67). Elsewhere, an
alternative strategy has been followed by a small group of people who have origins in
work psychology and is evident in the work of Cassell and Symon and their
collaborators. Cassell and Symon (1994; 2004a) and Symon and Cassell (1998) have
documented and popularized the use of a variety of methods for collecting and
analysing qualitative data. More recently, they and their colleagues (Cassell et al., 2005)
have produced a range of materials to help educate management researchers in the use
of qualitative methods.
To date, the pattern of advance of qualitative methods in general and case studies
in particular has varied both within disciplines according to the geographical
location and across disciplines. Very few disciplines in USA have developed strong
qualitative traditions see, for example, Lee (2004, p. 62). The strength of quantitative
research traditions in America has affected developments in some other countries.
For example, there are very few opportunities for Australian or New Zealand
academics to collaborate or present conference papers using qualitative methods
without travelling to Europe. In Europe, in some disciplines, there has been the
development of very strong qualitative traditions.
For example, UK academics cannot help notice the difference in feedback that
members of the business and management panel (Bessant et al., 2003) provided to
different disciplines about the submissions to the last research quality audit that took
place in the UK, namely the 2001 research-assessment exercise. For instance, while
most finance researchers generally relied on large sample econometric/statistical
methods accounting produced world class research that was eclectic in methodological
approach. This eclecticism includes qualitative research (Lee and Humphrey, 2006).
In this regard, qualitative research in accounting has been supported by the
establishment of a whole supportive academic infrastructure of conferences and
journals (Guthrie and Parker, 2004, p. 10) where qualitative approaches to case studies
have been seen as a legitimate feature of empirical studies. For example, Scapens (2004,
p. 257) reports that in the first ten years of the publication of Management Accounting
Research, for which he is Editor-in-Chief, around a quarter of the published papers
were based on case study research. The academic infrastructure supportive of
qualitative research has also provided a forum in which the application and usefulness
of case studies has been both explained (Otley and Berry, 1994) and the subject of
intense debate (Humphrey and Scapens, 1996a, b; Llewellyn, 1996; Young and Preston,
1996). Accounting is not the only discipline to have now developed a strong qualitative
tradition. Other management disciplines to have also done so include organizational
studies (Bessant et al., 2003, p. 58; Cassell and Symon, 2004b; Bryant and Lasky, 2007)
and Scandinavian approaches to marketing (Bessant et al., 2003, p. 56; Gummesson,
2007).
Advances in qualitative traditions in a range of disciplines are now being facilitated
by the publication of academic journals dedicated to qualitative research. Initially,
there were journals such as Qualitative Inquiry and Qualitative Research that

Guest editorial

171

QROM
2,3

172

accommodated all fields. More recently, there has been the establishment of journals
such as Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management and this journal,
Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, that are dedicated to
qualitative research in the management disciplines. One of the ambitions expressed in
the editorial of the first issue of this journal was to enable the different disciplines of
management to be able to learn from each other in their development of qualitative
methods (Cassell and Symon, 2006, p. 6). Previously, the sharing of ideas across
disciplines may have been confined to face-to-face multidisciplinary gatherings of
people sympathetic to the use of case studies. A good example was the workshop on
case studies organized jointly by the Management Control Association and the British
Academy of Managements Research Methodology Special Interest Group in
February 2006 when this special issue was proposed. Now, the development of
qualitative research journals such as this one allows such ideals to be disseminated
more widely.
The hope when this special issue was conceived was that papers that furthered our
understanding of the benefits and advantages of case study research would be
submitted from a range of disciplines. The four articles that we have decided to include
are drawn from three different disciplines: accounting; marketing; and organizational
studies. These articles broadly address three different types of issues: dealing with
particular cases and particular respondents viewpoints within cases that have merits
per se; the use of theory in case studies; and the comparison of case studies with other
research tools. This collection of articles provides a valuable collection of ideas and
experiences of case studies to be shared between all researchers, regardless of the
management discipline from which they are drawn.
Recognising the benefits of the particular in case study research
The first two articles in this special issue address different dimensions of the question
of what to do when either a particular respondent in a case study, or a particular case,
provides markedly different data from that provided by the majority of evidence. Case
study research has often been assessed against the criterion of whether it is possible to
generalise its findings and the need for triangulation of evidence. The application of
statistical logic and tests of probability have allowed survey methods to state the
confidence levels that generalizations might materialise in the population as a whole,
regardless of the limited nature of knowledge that such a generalization may provide.
In a context where such ideas are dominant, case studies despite their richness of
detail and their potential to reveal different types of interconnected phenomena are
often dismissed as anecdotal. With some rare exceptions (Patton, 2002, p. 230;
Saunders et al., 2007, pp. 170-8), there has been little systematic attempt to provide
comprehensive articulation of legitimate ways of selecting cases from which to
theorise.
There is a potential for generalizing from high-quality case studies. Lukka and
Kasanen (1995, p. 83) suggest three types of generalization rhetoric: statistical
generalization; contextualisation generalization that constitutes a meaningful and
convincing connection of the study with the real-world phenomena surrounding the
case in question, such as history, institutions and markets; and constructive
generalization in which:

. . . the researcher relies on the diffusion of solution ideas and argues that the successful
implementation of the solution . . . makes it credible that the solution will also work in similar
organizations elsewhere.

Yet, as Gummesson (2000, p. 96) has noted, a merit of case studies is that in contrast
to the grail of generalization sought by survey techniques they allow the realisation
of particularization.
There are, however, issues of how best to present a unique case and the tools
available for drawing attention to its specific qualities. In contrast to the positivistic
approach of Eisenhardt (1989, p. 545, 1991), who encourages constant iterations
between the data and emergent ideas to create a single well-defined construct the
first article in this issue by Bryant and Lasky (2007) suggests a different approach.
Bryant and Lasky contend that it is possible to present an individual case in a
markedly different way to the findings from the majority of cases. They propose using
what might appear initially to be an incommensurate paradigm to that which is used to
analyse the majority of the material. Bryant and Lasky start from a position of using
conventional-grounded theory in a way consistent with positivism and conducting
continuous iterations of the data to find patterns and regularities to express in the
emergent ideas. They then highlight how they used a more constructionist narrative
approach to analyse a separate case that offered markedly different data. Bryant and
Lasky were therefore able to draw out the rich and different account provided by a
maverick case, thus providing all of their respondents with a voice and a fuller
picture of all of the data that they had collected.
A different type of problem arising from finding a minority opinion in fieldwork is
apparent in the second article in this collection by Llewellyn and Northcott (2007).
Llewellyn and Northcott report a research study where the singular view namely a
viewpoint held by one respondent alone provided the greatest insights into the
emergent situation. Distinguishing between the characteristics and the meaning of a
phenomenon, Llewellyn and Northcotts paper highlights that when a state of flux
exists on a contested terrain, there may be many meanings of the significance of a
phenomenon. In such a situation, seeking the most common or popular view may not
be the one that offers the most valuable insights into the emergent situation.
Unfortunately for the academic community, the quality checks involved in the
double-blind review process of journals where reviewers often interpret validity as that
found in the greatest volume of evidence, may discourage presentation and publication
of the most insightful evidence. Fortunately for Llewellyn and Northcott and for our
understanding of research methods, subsequent events were to give greater weight to
the view of emergent trends expressed initially in the singular view.
Theorising from case studies
The third article in this collection by Jack and Kholief (2007) addresses the question of
how formal theory may be used in case study research. Hitherto, there have been a
variety of approaches developed for combining extant formal theories and data from
case study research. These range from the rejection of formal theories and instead
theorising inductively from the data (Glaser and Strauss, 1967); through working with
a toolbox of different theories against which to examine the data throughout the
fieldwork (Marginson, 2004, p. 327) to the prior selection of a particular theoretical
framework or paradigm and the analysis of research themes from within that

Guest editorial

173

QROM
2,3

174

framework or paradigm. There are inevitably benefits and problems with each
approach.
If theory is simply built from the data that is generated by case studies, there is the
potential for the generation of novel theory (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 546). Yet, there is
equally the danger that that researchers will get lost in the data and end up developing
a theory that is overly complex (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 547). A toolbox of different
theories may be used. This is the argument that researchers should employ a number
of differing perspectives, possibly in dialectic tension with one another (Covaleski and
Dirsmith, 1990, p. 566), or the so-called middle range approach of Laughlin (1995) and
Broadbent and Laughlin (1997). However, in doing so, there is the likelihood that
there will be the avoidance of selective plausibility (Scapens, 2004, p. 274) as a
consequence of only examining the data that fits the researchers preferred theory.
Equally, the testing of data against different theories could result in either a suitable
theory being discounted prematurely because it does not fit an early case, or a myriad
of completely different theories might end up being used to explain each separate case
with no unity between them. The selection of a single formal theory could lead to the
selective plausibility that Scapens counsels against, which as Humphrey and Scapens
(1996a, b, p. 88) have suggested, may lead to researchers using evidence to merely
illustrate a favoured theory. However, this is also an approach that offers the benefit of
allowing researchers to direct their research and discipline their senses to pick up on
those dimensions of a phenomenon that a theory is best able to explain.
These themes are apparent in the article by Jack and Kholeif (2007). Drawing on a
recent interpretation of structuration theory (Stones, 2005), they propose case studies
as a methodological tool for the dialectical development of theory. In other words,
structuration theory can be used to generate more searching questions about agents
and structures as part of interpreting research evidence in the accounting, management
and organizational research fields. The data generated may then be fed back into
further developing the theory. A powerful feature of this emergent theoretical
development is the position of the researcher as being analogous to that of an
investigator, elucidating the case through evidence, theory, experience and intuition
(Jack and Kholeif, 2007). Such a process requires great discipline (Ahrens and
Chapman, 2006) and such discipline enhances the contribution being made by
qualitative field research.
Extending the applicability of case studies
The final article in this collection considers whether case studies may be combined
with other methodological tools as part of a research strategy. Often, case studies are
seen as a research strategy per se that incorporates a range of methods that each permit
the study of one or more dimensions of the phenomenon under investigation (Hartley,
2004; Yin, 2003). As a consequence, there has been little attempt to consider how case
studies may be combined with other methodological tools and what purpose such a
strategy might achieve. The recent expansion of work on mixed methods (Bryman,
2006a, b, c) highlights that many researchers believe that all forms of research
approach may have their own respective technical limitations, or that a research
project may require the answering of supplementary questions, which may necessitate
the use of additional research methods.

In this context, the final article in this collection by Gummesson (2007) raises an
interesting comparison between case studies and network theory. Starting from a
framework that seeks to promote innovation in high-quality case studies, Gummesson
draws attention to a strength that both case studies and network theory share; namely,
a capacity to represent complex processes as they unfold. Gummesson suggests that
case studies and network theory may be combined either in ways that are
supplementary in a study of the same phenomenon, or as alternative research tools for
different research questions.
Concluding summary
This first special themed issue of Qualitative Research in Organization and
Management is, per se, a manifestation of the advancement of qualitative research
methods that has taken place in the array of management-related disciplines. The issue
is dedicated to articles on case studies in accounting, management and organizations.
We hope that this collection on a single theme will create the motivation and potential
for cross-germination of ideas based on experiences of researchers from the different
academic areas of accounting, marketing and organizational studies. The following
articles provide authority on ways of analysing and presenting cases that are different,
maximising the benefit of singular viewpoints found in case study research, theorising
from cases, and employing case studies alongside other methodological tools. As such,
the articles promise to help open up new research agendas and strategies for
investigators who use case studies.
References
Ahrens, T. and Chapman, C.S. (2006), Doing qualitative field research in management
accounting: positioning data to contribute to theory, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 819-41.
Bell, C. and Newby, H. (Eds) (1977), Doing Sociological Research, George Allen & Unwin, London.
Bessant, J., Birley, S., Cooper, C., Dawson, S., Gennard, J., Gardiner, M., Gray, A., Jones, P.,
Mayer, C., McGee, J., Pidd, M., Rowley, G., Saunders, J. and Stark, A. (2003), The state of
the field in UK management research: reflections of the research assessment exercise
(RAE) panel, British Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 51-68.
Boland, J.R.J. and Pondy, L.R. (1983), Accounting in organizations: a union of natural and
rational perspectives, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 8 Nos 2-3, pp. 223-34.
Broadbent, J. and Laughlin, R. (1997), Developing empirical research: an example informed by
a Habermasian approach, Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 10 No. 5,
pp. 622-48.
Bryant, J. and Lasky, B. (2007), A researchers tale: dealing with epistemological divergence,
Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 179-93.
Bryman, A. (Ed.) (1988), Doing Research in Organisations, Routledge, London.
Bryman, A. (Ed.) (2006a), Mixed Methods,Vol. I, Sage, London.
Bryman, A. (Ed.) (2006b), Mixed Methods,Vol. II, Sage, London.
Bryman, A. (Ed.) (2006c), Mixed Methods,Vol. III, Sage, London.
Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (Eds) (1994), Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research:
A Practical Guide, Sage, London.

Guest editorial

175

QROM
2,3

176

Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (Eds) (2004a), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational
Research, Sage, London.
Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (2004b), Raising the profile of qualitative methods in organizational
research, in Humphrey, C. and Lee, B. (Eds), The Real Life Guide to Accounting Research,
Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 491-508.
Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (2006), Taking qualitative methods in organization and management
research seriously, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 4-12.
Cassell, C., Symon, G., Buehring, A. and Johnson, P. (2006), The role and status of qualitative
methods in management research: an empirical account, Management Decision, Vol. 44
No. 2, pp. 290-303.
Cassell, C., Symon, G., Johnson, P., Bishop, V. and Buehring, A. (2005), Benchmarking Good
Practice in Qualitative Management Research: Training Workshops The Facilitators
Guide, Economic and Social Research Council Publication, Swindon, available at: www.
shef.ac.uk/bgpinqmr/
Covaleski, M.A. and Dirsmith, M.W. (1990), Dialectic tension, double reflexivity and the
everyday accounting researcher: on using qualitative methods, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 543-73.
Cullen, J., Richardson, S. and OBrien, R. (2004), Exploring the teaching potential of
empirically-based case studies, Accounting Education: An International Journal, Vol. 13
No. 2, pp. 251-66.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1991), Better stories and better constructs: the case for rigor and comparative
logic, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 620-7.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Aldine de Gruyter,
Hawthorne, NY.
Guba, E. and Lincoln Y.S. (1989), Fourth Generation Evaluation, Sage, Newbury Park.
Gummesson, E. (2000), Qualitative Methods in Management Research, Sage, London.
Gummesson, E. (2007), Case study research and network theory: birds of a feather, Qualitative
Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 226-48.
Guthrie, J. and Parker, L. (2004), Diversity and AAAJ interdisciplinary perspectives on
accounting, auditing and accountability, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 7-16.
Hartley, J. (2004) in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (Eds), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in
Organizational Research, Sage, London, pp. 323-33.
Humphrey, C. (2001), Paper prophets and the continuing case for thinking differently about
accounting research, British Accounting Review, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 91-103.
Humphrey, C. and Lee, B. (2004a), Introduction, in Humphrey, C. and Lee, B. (Eds), The Real
Life Guide to Accounting Research, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. xxiii-xxx.
Humphrey, C. and Lee, B. (Eds) (2004b), The Real Life Guide to Accounting Research, Elsevier,
Oxford.
Humphrey, C. and Lee, B. (2004c), The real life guide to accounting research: a strategy for
inclusion, Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 66-84.

Humphrey, C. and Scapens, R.W. (1996a), Theories and case studies of organizational
accounting practices: limitation or liberation, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 86-106.
Humphrey, C. and Scapens, R.W. (1996b), Rhetoric and case study research: response to
Joni Young and Alistair Preston and to Sue Llewellyn, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 119-22.
Jack, L. and Kholief, A. (2007), Introducing strong structuration theory for informing qualitative
case studies in organization, management and accounting research, Qualitative Research
in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 208-25.
Jankowicz, A.D. (2005), Business Research Projects, Thomson Learning, London.
Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (2006), Evaluating qualitative management
research: towards a contingent criteriology, International Journal of Management
Reviews, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 131-56.
Laughlin, R. (1995), Empirical research in accounting: alternative approaches and a case for
middle-range thinking, Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 63-87.
Lee, B. and Humphrey, C.G. (2006), More than a numbers game: qualitative research in
accounting, Management Decision, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 180-97.
Lee, T.A. (2004), Accounting and auditing research in the United States, in Humphrey, C. and
Lee, B. (Eds), The Real Life Guide to Accounting Research, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 57-71.
Lee, T.W. (1999), Using Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, Sage, London.
Llewellyn, S. (1996), Theories for theorists or theories for practice? Liberating academic
accounting research?, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 112-8.
Llewellyn, S. and Northcott, D. (2007), The singular view in management case studies,
Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 194-207.
Lukka, K. and Kasanen, E. (1995), The problem of generalizability: anecdotes and evidence in
accounting research, Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 71-90.
Mahoney, T.A. (1997), Scholarship as a career of learning through research and teaching, in
Andre, R. and Frost, P.J. (Eds), Researchers Hooked on Teaching: Noted Scholars Discuss
the Synergies of Teaching and Research, Sage, London, pp. 112-24.
Marginson, D.E.W. (2004), The case study, the interview and the issues: a personal reflection, in
Humphrey, C. and Lee, B. (Eds), The Real Life Guide to Accounting Research, Elsevier,
Oxford, pp. 325-37.
Otley, D.T. and Berry, A.J. (1994), Case study research in management accounting and control,
Management Accounting Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 45-65.
Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed., Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Roberts, G. (2003) Review of Research Assessment, UK Joint Funding Bodies.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2007), Research Methods for Business Students, 4th ed.,
Pearson Education, Harlow.
Scapens, R.W. (1990), Researching management accounting practice: the role of case study
methods, British Accounting Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 259-81.
Scapens, R.W. (2004), Doing case study research, in Humphrey, C. and Lee, B. (Eds), The Real
Life Guide to Accounting Research, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 257-79.

Guest editorial

177

QROM
2,3

178

Seale, C. (1999), Quality in qualitative research, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 465-78.
Stones, R. (2005), Structuration Theory, Palgrave, London.
Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (Eds) (1998), Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational
Research: A Practical Guide, Sage, London.
Yin, R. (1984), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 1st ed., Sage, London.
Yin, R. (1989), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, London.
Yin, R. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage, London.
Young, J. and Preston, A. (1996), Are accounting researchers under the tyranny of single theory
perspectives?, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 107-11.
About the authors
Bill Lee is a Senior Lecturer in Accounting and Financial Management at the University of
Sheffields Management School where his teaching responsibilities include contributing to the
teaching of qualitative methods to Masters and PhD students. He is Secretary to the British
Academy of Managements Research Methodology Special Interest Group and a Co-organizer of
a current ESRC-funded seminar series on Advancing Research in the Business and
Management Field. His publications in the area include the research methods collection, The
Real Life Guide to Accounting Research that he co-edited with Christopher Humphrey in 2004 and
which is being reissued in paperback next year. Bill Lee is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: w.j.lee@Sheffield.ac.uk
Paul M. Collier is an Associate Professor in Accounting at Monash University in Australia.
He was previously a Senior Lecturer at the University of Aston in Birmingham UK and he held
an Advanced Institute of Management Public Sector Fellowship to support his qualitative
research studies of accounting in the police.
John Cullen is a Professor of Management Accounting and Associate Dean with responsibility
for knowledge transfer at the University of Sheffields Management School. He has researched and
published widely, generally basing his work on case studies of both small and large organizations
in the public and private sectors. He has also been innovative in utilizing case studies of his work in
his teaching and has published a number of book chapters and articles in journals such as
Accounting Education on the benefits of using case studies in teaching.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5648.htm

A researchers tale: dealing with

epistemological divergence

A researchers
tale

Janet Bryant and Barbara Lasky

Swinburne University of Technology, Lilydale, Australia

179

Abstract
Purpose The papers purpose is to explore a theoretical and methodological dilemma.
Design/methodology/approach Commencing doctoral research, and committed to an orthodox
grounded theory approach, a unique story was uncovered which, to do it and the research justice,
required an alternative form of representation. Intuition decreed that this should be narrative.
However, grounded theory and narrative entail epistemologically and ontologically incommensurate
paradigms. The paper seeks to consider whether inclusion of the unique story would compromise, or
subvert, the already emergent grounded theory. An exploration of the relationship between different
epistemological and ontological traditions is also to be made, based on the assumption that method
slurring, and a more eclectic approach to using incommensurate paradigms, may be valuable.
Findings In transcribing and coding data using strictly orthodox grounded theory methods, the
researcher runs the risk of stripping the research story of some critical dimension(s). However,
combining a narrative approach with that of grounded theory, the paper allows for the representation
of an atypical Maverick case, along-side other more typical cases.
Originality/value The paper points out, to the early career qualitative researcher in particular,
that it is legitimate to combine seemingly incommensurate methodologies, notably where not to do so
would result in the loss of enriching and powerful insights into basic social processes.
Keywords Narratives, Qualitative research, Research methods
Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction
The aim of this paper is to explore a theoretical and methodological dilemma that
became evident to the researcher on completing stage one of a grounded theory
project on implementation of best value legislation, by local government authorities
(LGAs) in Victoria, Australia. Initially there was a strong commitment to using
orthodox Glaserian (1978, 1992, 1998, 2001, 2003) grounded theory to explore the
implementation of best value. Quite early in the research process, however, a story
presented by a participant was so compelling, and original, that just to code the
interview transcript without a full inclusion of this particular participants story would
have seriously diminished the research outcomes. By critical voice, the authors refer
both literally to the critique of state government legislation in terms of its impact on
LGAs and the lived lives of their constituents; as well as to the potential of personal
stories to demonstrate life as experienced directly by the interviewee. As a result of this
particular interview, some limitations of using Glaserian grounded theory in a
singular and orthodox manner became evident, providing an urgent imperative for
closer examination of the contingencies entailed in combining grounded theory with
narrative analysis.
The paper has a number of sections. The following section provides the first
authors reflexive account of her identity, and methodological stance, as researcher
within this research. A short note explains the involvement of the second author.

Qualitative Research in Organizations

and Management: An International
Journal
Vol. 2 No. 3, 2007
pp. 179-193
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1746-5648
DOI 10.1108/17465640710835346

QROM
2,3

Next, background to the research is presented, and the research problem is outlined.
The Maverick interview is profiled and the nature of the methodological crisis is
considered; and the emergent epistemological and ontological arguments with their
underpinnings in the literature of grounded theory and narrative are debated. The
paper concludes with some comments on the impact of such a crisis of representation
on early career qualitative researchers.

180
The researchers
First author
The first author is a PhD candidate researching reform processes associated with the
introduction of best value legislation into local government in Victoria, in 1999. Under
guidance of her supervisor, the first author (here in after called the researcher except
where it was more appropriate to use the pronoun I) was committed to applying
orthodox Glaserian grounded theory. This certainly seemed an appropriate
methodology as her focus was on investigating how actors implement and mediate
legislation generated by, from, or within, the institutional structure of the state, as well
as taking account of idiosyncratic local contingencies, strategic policies, and the
cultural environments of the LGAs concerned.
Despite initial commitment to all the axioms of the orthodox Glaserian approach the
imperative to include narrative analysis as part of the current grounded theory project
stemmed, serendipitously, from her stumbling unguarded into the metaphysical
domain accurately dubbed as he crisis of representation by Denzin and Lincoln (2003,
p. 27). This resulted from the unique nature of one particular interview a David and
Goliath story of such rich textual quality that the researcher felt that obedient
compliance with the coding dictates of grounded theory would excise an important
critical voice, diminishing somewhat, the research outcomes.
Second author
The second author was not involved in the research here, but was experienced in
narrative research within the local government area, in the 1990s, during a period of
enforced amalgamations and compulsory competitive tendering (CCT) initiatives. As
colleagues, the decision to work on this paper together made sense.
The research
In Australia, local councils represent administrative subunits of the states. They
function both to implement state-legislated changes and resolve policy disputes at the
sub-national level. During the 1990s, Victoria was driven by a state government whose
agenda for local government reform focused on institutional arrangement. According
to Martin (1999, p. 19), Victoria was seen as the most proactive (of all states) having
completed boundary reform [through amalgamation of local councils] within a specific
timeframe, as well as achieving significant rate cuts and setting minimum standards
for CCT. Enforced CCT initiatives, rate cutting and rate capping regulations prescribed
by the state, further exacerbated tensions arising from amalgamation. Vince (1997)
later argued that, the Victorian experience of amalgamation, with its poorly planned,
hastily executed mergers that did not involve councilors, staff and community, resulted
in long-term organisational problems that ultimately impacted negatively on service
delivery, a point which became obvious in the Maverick interview.

As a result of these changes, LGAs experienced a plethora of enforced structural

modifications over which they exercised little control. Perhaps, the most notable of
these was a massive reduction of councils and shires, from 210 LGAs, to just 78 in a
period of two-and-a-half years. Best value legislation, introduced in Victoria in 1999 by
the newly elected Bracks Labour Government, aimed to over-ride the management
strategy of CCT implemented by the prior conservative government. The new
legislation implicitly recognised the negative impact of the highly regulative ethos
of the CCT period; and, more explicitly, acknowledged that a one size fits all,
market-driven approach to service delivery, was not necessarily appropriate for
achieving modernization of the local government sector. It heralded potential for an
altogether more flexible, self-regulatory, democratic and ameliorative approach
towards local governance. From the first stage of data analysis it was evident that a
context of uncertainty, and at times, confusion, prevailed after the introduction of
Best Value. Participants in the research cited a lack of specified guidelines for personnel
responsible for the implementation, although the legislation required demonstration of
community consultation, and evidentiary documentation of effective service delivery.
This constituted a key challenge, as presumably overly prescriptive guidelines would
be counter to the self-regulatory ethos and flexibility implicit in the legislation.
The greatest challenge noted by participants however, was to produce a credible
review procedure for their services that dovetailed best value program requirements
with their organisations capacity to deliver best value outcomes.
The case represented by the Maverick interview (as the researcher dubbed it),
illustrated a purely intra-organisational response, may not be the whole story with
respect to implementation of best value, in Victorian local authorities. The reactivity of
at least some participants, in this instance, citizens of a rural community who took it
upon themselves to re-establish the former (pre-amalgamation) boundaries of their
Shire, called for some form of representation. This Maverick story goes to the heart of
the identity of the social actors under study. In this particular case, the participant
along with local citizens, collectively resisted what was perceived as threat, or damage,
to the fabric of their community, while simultaneously developing processes to meet
regulatory requirements of the legislation contributing to that damage.
The research problem
Initial coding operations were well developed, with data collection just beyond the
scoping stage, and coding of eight in-depth interviews with organisational
development personnel from a range of shires and municipalities throughout Victoria,
underway. In keeping with the analytic inductive approach (Silverman, 1997) of
grounded theory, a thematic analysis based on codes drawn from the interview
transcripts was undertaken. Organisation of data into categories and themes from the
start enables a common thread to be readily identified and substantiated from the data,
and Glaser (2001, p. 225) is insistent on a set of fundamental processes that need to be
followed if the study is to be recognised as a product of the grounded theory
methodology. This includes simultaneous data collection, coding and analysis; a
range of subsequent coding operations; the use of constant comparison; memoing,
theoretical sampling, categorisation and densification to delimit a core category
thereby working the data toward identification of a basic social process. As a result of
preliminary data collection and analysis, several themes and a latent grounded

A researchers
tale

181

QROM
2,3

182

theory were emergent. Things were generally moving in a predictable fashion.

Suddenly, a story presented by one participant was so compelling and original that
just to code the interview transcript would have seemed a travesty. Firstly, it would
obfuscate the participants right to individual voice, but secondly, coding would
dampen, or indeed diminish, the David and Goliath quality of the story. The
reduction implicit in coding operations would have led to loss of critical voice; and
the researcher was conscious that this may seriously diminish research outcomes,
including the validity and authenticity of the parsimonious grounded theory apparent,
even at this early stage of analysis. Critical voice refers literally to the critique of
state government legislation in terms of its impact on LGAs and the lived lives of
their constituents, as well as to the potential of personal stories to demonstrate life as
experienced directly by the interviewee, or more accurately owner of the narrative.
Intuitively, narrative presented as a method which would enable inclusion of this
interview, and countervail against the dependence of orthodox Glaserian method on
reifications of lived experience (albeit grounded ones).
Clearly, a closer investigation was called for as orthodox grounded theory was,
methodologically speaking, decidedly not on an intimate footing with narrative, at
least on epistemological grounds. Furthermore, it has been recently advanced (Rynes,
in Editors note to Suddaby, 2006, p. 633) that grounded theory in management
research is in danger of losing its integrity both because of overly generic use of the
term grounded theory and confusion regarding alternative epistemological
approaches to qualitative research. This predicament, has articulated into an
erosion versus evolution debate between the originators of the approach:
The tension ultimately prov[ing] to be a point of departure between the founders of grounded
theory, with Glaser favouring creativity and openness to unanticipated interpretations of the
data while Strauss (and co-author Juliet Corbin) became advocates of adherence to formal and
prescriptive routines for analysing data (Suddaby, 2006, p. 638).

In other iterations of grounded theory methodology, Charmaz (2005) argues:

Glaser (2001) treats data as something separate from the researcher and implies that they
(data) are untouched by the competent researchers interpretations. If perchance researchers
somehow interpret their data, then according to Glaser these data are rendered objective by
looking at many cases (pp. 510-511).

Buoyed by this position, it was felt that one should and may proceed without adhering
rigidly to the neutrality and axioms of mid-century positivism. Grounded theory and
narrative may be sufficiently compatible bedfellows, minimally in the domain of
ontology and axiology, to legitimate some form of marriage, which might
accommodate their apparently fundamental epistemological incompatibility. To this
end, the epistemological, axiological and ontological foundations of the two methods of
inquiry were subjected to closer scrutiny.
Several urgent questions immediately surfaced catapulting me into the domain of
reflexivity about the knowledge-making enterprise itself (Whitley, 1984). For
example, what methodological dilemmas might occur if this story was maintained
complete as narrative within the grounded theory project? Humphreys (2005), for
example, in his discussion of autoethnography and reflexivity, attempts to achieve
what Saldana (2003) describes as a solo narrative . . . reveal[ing] a discovery and
retell[ing] an epiphany in a characters life (pp. 224-5) to illustrate the potential for

adding value to qualitative research by using such an approach ( p. 841). How should
one deal with epistemological divergence resulting from two research strategies sitting
within alternative paradigms of inquiry? Glaserian grounded theory, with objectivist
epistemological persuasions, sits theoretically in the interpretivist camp, whereas
narrative analysis is a child of post-modernist constructionism. Epistemologically
speaking at least, narrative sits in this transactional and subjectivist domain, meaning
the researcher is essentially a co-creator with participants of the research outcomes.
Thus, from an axiological standpoint, both researcher and participants should remain
written into the research. Not so with grounded theory. Given these tensions, was it
nevertheless legitimate, and valuable, to combine the two methodologies? Would doing
so make the research outcome more robust? As an early career qualitative researcher,
I was unsure. However, as Calas and Smircich (1999) argue Multi-paradigmatic
awareness simply facilitates a very modern, metatheoretical discussion around these
issues: What philosophy of knowledge is behind truthful knowledge? Each paradigm
is a foundational claim (a metatheory) about the possibility of true knowledge. Each
offers a way toward a more complete understanding or explanation of the social world.
Each claims to be the best view of the world out there. None [authors italics]
accounts for the language game in which they may all be embedded ( p. 651). Yet
importantly, they point out the significance of having multiple paradigms in
organisation studies is that they do edge us towards such reflexivity.
David and Goliath: the Maverick interview
The Maverick story was a community story, as well as being both an inter- and
intra-organisational saga. This shire had succeeded, where no other shire or
municipality had, in re-claiming its former identity, historical boundaries, and
community status that the participant made amply clear were negatively
compromised by imposed LGA amalgamation, and other public sector management
strategies, such as CCT and best value:
Case 6 (Rural): I picked up the pieces of what happened to the workforce under the forces of
CCT. The quality of jobs had deteriorated remarkably and . . . we slowly built back up to a
rational view of the world . . . Ive lead the de-amalgamation [as]. . . country people were
getting a bit pissed of . . . but it took six years for people to twig what happened [in which]. . .
no council work done. There [had been] no council for the first couple of years [after the
amalgamation]. . . The people they [Government] chose were completely incompetent at
running any particular council. They made monumental errors in capital expenditure and
about social values. So they set in train the de-amalgamation because they were unaware of
what was going on. Ill give you an example. The white lines on our roads were being painted
by people from Western Australia. But none of those people worked in our town or spent their
money here. Now, every time ten people who live and work here . . . one extra high school
teacher is put in the town (excerpt from interview 6. C).

A powerful story
The de-amalgamation story demonstrated the capacity of citizen-based social
movements to achieve ends one would have supposed unthinkable, given the
circumstances of the previous decade. It also illustrated the potential unruliness of
unintended consequences reform processes may generate, even when circumstances
render this relatively unlikely. In other cases such as in Case 4 illustrated below,

A researchers
tale

183

QROM
2,3

184

participant responses were typically framed within essentially intra-organisational

parameters the stories were organisational stories rather than community or
inter-organisational accounts, and they lacked the power of story as a site of
representation of an epiphany in a characters life. For example:
Case 4 (Rural) We have got a different mindset and framework [and] we have the pressure of
Best Value (BV) to pass this magic test. We discovered you could just tick off a lot of the BV
steps. In the process weve discovered a lot more about our services. So I suppose we are a bit
more positive that we have built a new style which is relatively efficient . . . and organisation
specific (excerpt from interview 4, with H)
Case 4 (Rural) Weve been a bit slow implementing BV [but] we are doing it seriously now.
People arent seeing it as a threat. They are seeing it as an opportunity (Excerpt from
Interview 5, with C).

Methodological crisis: the problem of commensurability

After struggling for weeks, firstly to clearly articulate, and secondly, to resolve the
methodological issues being faced in trying to marry two non-commensurate
epistemological domains, I came upon the following quote in Denzin and Lincoln (2003,
p. 267) They ask:
Are paradigms commensurable? Is it possible to blend elements of one paradigm into another,
so that one is engaged in research that represents the best of both worldviews? The answer,
from our perspective, has to be a cautious yes. This is especially so if the models (paradigms)
share axiomatic elements that are similar, or resonate strongly between them . . .
Commensurability is an issue only when researchers want to pick and choose among the
axioms of positivist and interpretivist models, because the axioms are contradictory and
mutually exclusive.

Pick and choose that was exactly what I wanted to do! I did not want to treat the two
methodologies as mutually exclusive, sensing that used in conjunction they would
make a valuable contribution to my research. If these approaches at least shared
ontological and axiological axioms, surely there might be a strong case for researchers
to pick and choose and indeed to slur epistemologically incommensurate
paradigms?
Grounded theory
Orthodox Glaserian (1978, 1998, 2001) grounded theory has the intent of developing
middle range theories through identification of the basic social process used by actors
to deal with contingencies of their everyday reality. It was an appropriate choice to
further the aims of the research of explication, or how actors solve problems in
implementing legislation for public sector reform. Grounded theorists questions are
not concerned with how knowledge is constituted as truth by the social actors
(the post structuralist concern), or how their realities are structured through language.
The grounded theorist wishes to identify (and theorise) how actors deal with their
problems. The aims are pragmatic, that is, to know what our informants main
concern is and how they seek to resolve it (Glaser, 2001, p. 177).
As methodology, grounded theory invites the researcher to tread similar pathways
to those followed by traditional ethnographic researchers carefully gathering data,
and then arranging it in a consistent manner, generally according to coding dictates of

the method. Consequently, to a greater or lesser extent, participants are, ontologically

speaking, written out of the story. This does not preclude them from surfacing
indirectly by means of in vivo codes, or in vignettes supporting the emergent theory.
The conventions of ethnographic realism also require researchers to write themselves
out of the text, but include an expectation that researchers report clearly in the
axiological domain, for example by exposition of their values, biases or the potentially
value laden nature of any particular choice of study. Indeed, for this reason, the paper
is presented as A Researchers Tale, both examining dilemmas confronted in doing
grounded theory, and, simultaneously acknowledging how as researcher, one inevitably
becomes part of ones research, regardless of whether or not this is consciously
intended in the research design. One reason for this is that in-depth interviewing
always provides potential for the researcher to participate in stories of participants as
they are told, lived and co-composed in the course of the interview. Thus, at a point
somewhere halfway through analysing the scoping interviews, the researcher was
dismally aware if she continued in a singular fashion with orthodox Glaserian
methodology there was a danger of losing the multi-layered, and many stranded,
qualities of the interview material; most particularly of the one interview providing an
excellent, if antimonous, case of the basic social process emerging from analysis of data
so far.
Basic social process (BSP) is the term used by Glaser (1978, 1998, 2001) to identify
the key category, or process, via which social actors confront and solve problems in
negotiating their everyday experiences in this case, interpreting and implementing
best value legislation. So, importantly, BSPs exclude neither structural, nor temporal
dimensions as epistemological or ontological axioms for framing or interpreting
social action. Glaser (1978) prescribes that data is worked via open, selective and
theoretical coding processes towards ever higher levels of reification, moving it
towards increasingly conceptual domains. Ultimately, by means of theoretical coding,
researchers move towards generation of a grounded theory or a set of integrated
conceptual hypotheses organised around a core category (Glaser, 2003, p. 2).
In essence, this endeavour is positivistic because it requires stripping the data of
much of its ontological robustness/connectedness, in the search for nomothetic
patterns or regularities. Despite this, the theory that emerges remains grounded, and
indeed, provisional. In short, the participant is written out of the text in any sort of
ontological sense, and the researcher is even more convincingly banished.
Narrative
In contrast to, the aims of Glaserian grounded theory, narrative inquiry sees research
as a continuous collaborative act, where research outcomes are ideographic, rather
than nomothetic, representations of the lived experiences of the participants. In
opposition to grounded theory, narrative privileges the role of plot in weaving
together recognisable patterns of events, recognising that central to the plot structure
are human predicaments and attempted solutions. Narratives are neither true, nor
false, but simply forms of reality representation. The language chosen by the
individual, via which they relate their narrative, reflects how that individual sees
the world. The individuals construction of past events and actions serves to enable
them to claim identities and construct their lives. Both culturally and organisationally,
narratives serve to give cohesion to shared beliefs, and to transmit values. White (1981)

A researchers
tale

185

QROM
2,3

186

observes narratives are metacodes for the nature of a shared reality. The corollary of
this, ontologically, is that there is a plurality of discursive realities. Thus,
representations of reality are perceived as just that representations. Research
outcomes from this standpoint then essentially become just one more form of
representation. Yet in assuming such a standpoint perspective researchers make way
for reflexivity and a critical examination of the way modern (paradigmatic or
foundational) knowledge has been constituted, without needing to provide for an
alternative knowledge (Calas and Smircich, 1999, p. 652).
Interestingly, Schwandt (2003) advances an additional epistemological framework
to traditional interpretivist accounts that may potentially offer at least one avenue for
accommodating some of the tensions outlined above emerging from the struggle to
reconcile epistemologically non-commensurate paradigms. Although, according to
interpretivist traditions, the interpreter typically objectifies that which is to be
interpreted (thereby remaining unaffected by and external to the interpretive process),
philosophical hermeneutics offers a radically different way of representing the notion
of interpretive understanding (p. 300). In this model the role of interpreter is that of
exegete or one engaged in critical analysis or explanation of a text or some human
action (which Schwandt uses interchangeably) based on the method of the hermeneutic
circle. Several axioms of philosophical hermeneutics potentially provide a foundation
for epistemological reconciliation. Firstly, the conviction that understanding, in the
first instance, is not a procedure or rule-governed undertaking; rather, understanding is
interpretation it is a very condition of being human (Schwandt, 2003, p. 301).
Secondly, understanding requires engagement of ones biases, including a close
examination of our historically inherited and unreflectively held prejudices
(Schwandt, 2003, p. 302) because these function to disable our efforts to understand
others as well as ourselves. Thirdly, only by entering into a dialogic encounter with
what is other, or not understood, can we expose ourselves to risking and testing our
preconceptions. Finally, the act of understanding is essentially lived, or existential,
and does not occur in two separate steps of first acquiring understanding; and
secondly applying that understanding (Schwandt, 2003, p. 303).
What Schwandt (2003) offers the researcher here, then, is the notion of understanding
as simultaneously a form of moral-political engagement, and a mode of inquiry not
aimed at developing a procedure of understanding, but rather directed to clarifying the
conditions in which understanding takes place. Philosophical hermeneutics opposes
nave realism or objectivism with respect to meaning, and can be said to endorse the
conclusion that there is never a finally correct interpretation (p. 302). This position
would be acceptable to some constructivists, including Glaser, yet philosophical
hermeneutics recognises meaning as not necessarily constructed (as in created, or
assembled) but as an outcome of negotiation; or a coming to terms between actors,
thus embodying the researcher squarely within the research product. In this sense
understanding is always dialogic, participative and bound up with conversation,
the form of which an in-depth interview essentially mirrors. This resolution of the
reflexivity conundrum interfaces comfortably with Ellis and Bochners (2000, p. 773)
reflections on autoethnography as an autobiographical genre of writing and research
that displays multiple layers of consciousness, connecting the personal to the cultural.
Coffey and Atkinson (1996) point out that narratives and stories are an obvious way
for social actors to talk to strangers, in this case, the researcher. To the post-modernist,

reality is complex and multi-faceted, but the paradigm is often selected as the most
appropriate epistemological framework for accessing behavioral issues, such as the
responses of local government personnel to implementing best value. Further, than
allowing individuals the freedom to explore their own career paths, narratives also
function to bring to the surface issues that can then be understood at a level other than
the rational and external with which individuals too often order their lives, thus
deepening understanding in the moral-political and existential sense that Schwandt
flags as the epistemological contribution of philosophical hermeneutics.
In contrast with objectivist epistemological assumptions of interpretivism, the
constructivism of the post-structuralist paradigm of inquiry entails:
. . . the view that all knowledge, and therefore all meaningful reality as such, is contingent on
human practices, being constructed in, and out of, interaction between human beings and
their world, and developed and transmitted within an essentially social context (Crotty, 1998,
p. 42).

A commitment to constructivism is subjectivist because it entails the assumption that

meaning is essentially constructed by participants, in any given situation. This
position is essentially common to both the post-structuralist and interpretivist
paradigms of inquiry, but it is epistemologically incompatible with the objectivism and
the realism of orthodox grounded theory, as espoused most recently by Glaser (2001).
For these reasons, I sensed immediately the story of the Maverick interview had
potential to expand, as it were, the ontological sufficiency of the lived experience
both of the interviewee, and the community represented in the case of this lived story.
The retelling of the story was surely axiomatic of how public sector reform was
managed, in the Victorian local government context? For those who practice narrative
as method, interestingly, there was a curiously close overlay in this instance between
inclusion of this particular narrative and what Glaser refers to as fit. By fit Glaser
(1978, p. 4) means the categories of the theory must fit the data. That is, the data must
not be forced to fit pre-existent or pre-conceived categories, or be discarded in favor of
keeping extant theories in tact.
Slurring
The powerful storied quality of the interview called for an alternative form of
representation to the inevitable reification entailed in the procedures of grounded
theory. According to Glaser (1978) open coding requires running the data open by
coding different incidents into as many categories as possible, beginning with
fracturing the data into analytic pieces that can be raised to a conceptual level.
Notably, this method is quite the counter to what Rice and Ezzy (1999, p. 125) consider
proper, namely:
Narrative analysis is distinguished from other forms of qualitative data analysis by its
attention to the structure of the narrative as a whole. Traditional thematic analysis typically
fragments texts, coding small chunks then collating them. Narrative analysis searches for
larger units of discourses and codes their structure and thematic content.

A narrative approach would counterbalance the confronting limitation in coding the

Maverick interview, and the sense the researcher had of emasculating this unique story
by destroying its ontological substance. Losing the plot through fragmentation of the
powerful narrative quality of the interview could be avoided.

A researchers
tale

187

QROM
2,3

188

The possibility of subverting what Glaser (2003) refers to as relevance, a key

criteria for the robustness of a grounded theory, in understanding the take up of best
value, was also apparent as codes established from the data are essentially reifications
of the actors subjective definitions of their world, although directly grounded in them.
Whilst coding takes place in close proximity to participants constructs about reality,
the codes do not, strictly speaking, exactly replicate these. However, this does not
exclude codes from directly mirroring vivid phrases participants used to encapsulate
their reality, as is frequently seen in grounded theory research. Nor does it preclude use
of vignettes or direct quotations from our data. So as method, grounded theory admits
merely glimpses of the plot.
Glaser (2003, p. 14) argues four key criteria are equally applicable to conducting
grounded theory research and for judging or evaluating it. If appropriate procedures
are adhered to they will generate theory that fits, works, is relevant, and readily
modifiable. In an attempt to delineate overlays and points of divergence between the
two methods, let us first consider these in relation to narrative analysis. The first
of these criteria concerns validity and Glaser uses the word fit, which in grounded
theory derives from the method of constant comparison. Via constant comparison, the
researcher ensures concepts adequately express patterns in the data they purport to
conceptualise. To ensure fit, the method of constant comparison must be used for the
duration of the research. Fit is not an explicit issue for the narrative analyst, simply
because an extremely close ontological overlay between the act of developing plot,
and the participants experience of reality, renders it redundant. However, narratives
must ring true to become part of social currency minimally in the groups that
generate them. Thus, a number of authors have sensibly pointed out that people are not
free to fabricate narratives at will. The stories produced by individual social actors
would make no sense if they did not accord, however obliquely, with broader social
narratives (Lawler, 2002, p. 251). So in presenting a narrative, Glasers criteria of fit
essentially plays a role by default rather than as an outcome of the principle of constant
comparison.
Secondly, for Glaser, workability is an indicator that grounded theory generates
hypotheses sufficiently accounting for how participants in a substantive area
continually resolve their main concerns. So, grounded theory must have explanatory
value, not just a descriptive purpose. In this sense, workability is also central to
narrative analysis, but resolution may be expressed as an element of the plot, for
example or as part of a coda; rather than in a categorical sense, as an identification of a
basic social process, or a core category. While Glaserian grounded theorising is
predicated on identification of the mode of problem resolution actors utilise to mediate
their daily reality; narrative does not preclude such a possibility. Resolution is not
strictly necessary as an outcome of narrative research, because stories can equally
well be flexible, ambiguous, open ended or have multiple interpretations (Rice and
Ezzy, 1999).
The third characteristic of Glaserian grounded theory entails relevance, not just to
an academic audience, or to the researcher, but via explication of the participants main
concerns. Features of good narrative are entirely compatible with this criterion of
robust grounded theory. In the case of the Maverick transcript, the participants
passion for relational aspects of his community shone throughout, for example, he
identifies those disenfranchised by the amalgamation, and other key players in the

story, and expounds on the general contribution of various community members in the
townships mobilisation to de-amalgamate. Furthermore, in clarifying how things
work in rural communities the participant makes evident the power of stories to bind
individuals as they realise they have common experiences underlying their shared
identity and linked futures. Stories of this nature have the capacity to enable members
of organisations, as well as the reader/listener, to step into the story recreating the
world it presents, and retaining the experience, in this way making the story their
own. The researcher too is compelled towards auto-ethnographic representation as
defined by Ellis and Bochner (2000). What could be more relevant?
The fourth and final evaluative criteria for Glaser, entails modifiability. Grounded
theories are always modifiable on the basis of new data, and this should not be
confused with verification. Grounded theories are never right or wrong. Such data
likewise never provides proof or disproof as such, just new analytic challenges.
Although grounded theory requires identification of basic social processes, and
explanation of how these are used for problem resolution by the social actors, Glaser
acknowledges the provisional nature of such theorising. With grounded theory then,
the potential for explanation (the positivistic tendency of this) would not necessarily
be compromised by the flexibility and open-endedness one celebrates in using the
narrative method.
The important point in examining Glasers four evaluative criteria for robustness in
grounded theory is that the gap between narrative and grounded theory as methods for
producing particular research outcomes closes. Indeed, the gap is quite minimal,
particularly from the axiological and ontological standpoint. Schwandt (2003) provides
an avenue for accommodating epistemological divergence between the two
methodologies, by including philosophical hermeneutics as a fourth form of
interpretivist understanding. Relevance in the Glaserian sense is self-evident in the
aspects outlined above of the Maverick narrative. One of the dilemmas of a coding
operation, and indeed adherence to grounded theory procedures generally, is that the
research act may erode the criterion of relevance of the research act for all
participants/stakeholders implicated in the research.
The Maverick interview transcript setting in train these theoretical and
methodological musings clearly had qualities making this case sufficiently different
from other cases to merit its inclusion as a narrative, rather than submerging it in a
grounded theory. With the story of de-amalgamation unfolding, both temporally and
from the standpoint of the participant, it provided both descriptive and explanatory
attributes of a good plot. A richly fabricated story emerged, with story lines
densely woven around a number of themes, amplified, but dissimilarly resolved in
other interviews, such as:
Case 15 (Rural) Local knowledge went out the door here because the ones with useful skills
just go in those circumstances [enforced amalgamation]. . . but Council ended up referring
back to people who were doing the jobs before in one way or another. In the small
communities like O, or distant places like M, you didnt have an out there workforce so you
are walking down the street and you might see Joe Blow who maintains roads and let him
know directly whats wrong . . . thats how things get done in the country. Now you have to
put in a formal call and contractors have to be available on a certain day . . . it still works but
whether it works any better with contracting is debatable. So with Best Value a lot of our
energy has been bringing services back in-house (Int.15. G).

A researchers
tale

189

QROM
2,3

190

Case 3 (Metropolitan) I think there still is some scepticism about Best Value because CCT put
off a lot of people, quite literally! It built up a lot of barriers between teams. That made it
actually become competitive in-house between units . . . a lot of them and us. I think
communication systems are just now starting to be identified, and still some communication
barriers need to be addressed . . . but a lot of councils really did BV like they had done CCT, it
was just under a slightly different banner . . . but the approach taken here was very different.
The CEO here was very much about developing the organisation and so he just incorporated
best value principles into an overall program he wanted to introduce (Int.3.J).

Some concluding comments

The researcher here is a PhD candidate and early career researcher. In the course of
conducting her PhD research she suddenly faced a confronting theoretical and
methodological dilemma. Propelled into the realm of reflexivity the challenge was to
articulate research outcomes without becoming entrapped in unreflexive
representational forms and paradigmatic webs which may easily typify
modernity, and subsequently dictate methodological orthodoxy. Fearful of
committing an unforgivable methodological gaffe, but at the same time fascinated
by the problem, and recognising that other early career researchers must also, on
occasion, face similar dilemmas, she set out to explore if two non-commensurate
epistemological domains, in this case orthodox Glaserian grounded theory and
narrative, could be merged to provide a more robust research outcome.
The researchers crisis of representation occurred in the process of transcribing
and coding a Maverick case. Whereas in all other cases adaptive intra-organisational
responses to finding solutions to the problems of implementing best value were
evident, the Maverick interview represented an extra-organisational and
community-based response to the imposition of regulatory pressures entailed in the
Legislation. The David and Goliath magnitude of this response, made the researcher
feel this interview would supply a validating dimension to any theory emerging from
the data, representing, so it seemed, a site of resistance to government reforms. What
appeared was a phenomenon of episodic proportions, to which only narrative method
would do justice, in conjunction with a more piecemeal, patterned and detailed
analysis of micro-processual phenomenon more malleable to grounded theorizing.
Grounded theory methodologically speaking is primarily inductivist. Glaser (1998)
acknowledges, however, that grounded theory borrows deductive methods from the
positivistic/empiricist paradigm, for example during the theoretical sampling stage. He
is also positivistic in prescribing that theory is the end-product of the research process.
From an epistemological standpoint, however, although grounded theory interfaces
comfortably with the epistemological constructivism of an interpretivist paradigm of
inquiry, it is incommensurate with the relativistic persuasions and constructionism of
narrative analysis.
Polkinghorne (1998) says: Narratives exhibit an explanation instead of
demonstrating it (italics the authors). Stories can function to find an intentional
state that mitigates (or at least makes comprehensible) a deviation from a canonical
cultural pattern. This is possible because the story does not depend on its reference to
some extralinguistic reality, but on its openness for negotiating meaning. As Bruner
(1990) claims, stories are especially viable instruments for social negotiation echoing
Schwandts (2003, pp. 49-50) analysis of the epistemological axioms of philosophical

hermeneutics discussed previously. The narrative of the Maverick interview

presented precisely this opportunity.
Despite some epistemological differences, on closer examination, there is a great
deal of convergence, or methodological overlay, between with these approaches
suggesting that, while grounded theory and narrative are somewhat challenged on
grounds of epistemological intimacy, they do have potential to be very compatible
ontological bed-fellows. The Maverick case clearly demonstrated potential to
provide an adjunct for fit, relevance, workability and modifiability, the principles
Glaser (2003, p. 14) adopts as criteria, applicable to conducting and evaluating, as well
as judging, grounded theory. Losing the plot through fragmentation of the powerful
narrative quality of the Maverick interview could be avoided.
Despite general epistemological incommensurability of the paradigms in which
narrative and grounded theory are typically situated, it has been demonstrated that
these two approaches share much in common. It is on this basis it is argued, that they
can potentially make more than good bed-fellows. Firstly, although narrative inquiry
sits more comfortably with the constructivist/subjectivist assumptions of
post-structuralism than with the realist/objectivist ones drawn on in grounded
theory, it nevertheless shares with grounded theory, a multi-layered perspective of
reality. So, in terms of ontological assumptions, post-structuralism is commensurate
with interpretivism. Interpretivists for example, readily recognise in any given context
there are multiple realities. This logically entails accepting multiple methods of inquiry
are useful if reality is to be properly understood. For interpretivists, meanings are
simply the basis of symbolic exchange and the main currency via which actors
negotiate daily reality. Parallels here between grounded theory approaches and
narrative inquiry are obvious. There is not much of a gap between a method which
aims to elicit and attend to the storied qualities of the social actors experience, and
one which aims to attend to processual aspects of their daily lives. The difference is
really just one of how the researcher attends to mining the data.
Apart from sharing these multi-layered ontological understandings, a second area
of convergence concerns the primacy which both narrative inquiry and grounded
theory give agentic attributes of social acts. Both forms of inquiry are premised on
the notion that individuals subscribe to, and rely on, symbolic exchange. The medium
of exchange may present a slightly different focus. For the narrative analyst this
occurs via narratives (stories) used to represent and to understand the world around
them, as well as to invest their lives with meaning (Sarbin, 1986), or via symbolic
exchanges punctuating mediation of the ordinary events in the daily lives of
individuals. In narrative inquiry, events and exchanges are given meaning according
to the part they play in either the whole of an individuals life, or for respective parts of
their life, whether at work, with family, or in some other organisation. As Eisner (1997,
p. 60) says: We make our experience, not simply have it a statement few grounded
theorists or interpretivists generally, would care to challenge. Accordingly, narrative
inquiry includes a temporal dimension which interpretivists have tended to neglect.
Story telling then, is not just a site where meaning is constructed by actors. The
stories themselves assume ontological significance beyond the immediate situated
context in which they are generated. They become repositories of the actors past, sites
where actors invent the present, and a means for social actors to envision a future. In
short, the story is a very suitable vehicle for representing the atypical Maverick case

A researchers
tale

191

QROM
2,3

192

alongside of the grounded theory practising alchemy which explicates/objectifies the

shared basic social process of others responding in more typical ways to the challenges
of implementing best value in Victorian local government.
It was with considerable relief the researcher could see, at least insofar as orthodox
Glaserian grounded theory and narrative go, it could be argued quite cogently
inclusion of a Maverick case within a grounded theory project was not only
appropriate, but would enhance the readers feeling for, and understanding of, all
participants stories in a more inclusive way. As an early career researcher, she could
relax, confident in the knowledge that she could defend her position and remain true to
all the research participants, no matter what their story.
References
Bruner, J.S. (1990), Acts of Meaning, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Calas, M.B. and Smircich, L. (1999), Past postmodernism? Reflections and tentative directions,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 649-71.
Charmaz, K. (2005), Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods, in Denzin, N. and
Lincoln, Y. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 509-35.
Coffey, A. and Atkinson, P. (1996), Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research
Strategies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Crotty, M. (1998), The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research
Process, Allen and Unwin, St Leonards.
Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds) (2003), The Landscape of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Eisner, E.W. (1997), The new frontier in qualitative research methodology, Qualitative Inquiry,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 259-73.
Ellis, C. and Bochner, A.P. (2000), Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: researcher
as subject, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research,
2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 733-69.
Glaser, B.G. (1978), Theoretical Sensitivity, Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.
Glaser, B.G. (1992), Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence Versus Forcing, Sociology
Press, Mill Valley, CA.
Glaser, B.G. (1998), Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions, Sociology Press,
Mill Valley, CA.
Glaser, B.G. (2001), The Grounded Theory Perspective: Conceptualization Contrasted with
Description, Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.
Glaser, B.G. (2003), The Grounded Theory Perspective II: Descriptions Remodelling of Grounded
Theory Methodology, Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.
Humphreys, M. (2005), Getting personal: reflexivity and autoethnographic vignettes,
Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 840-60.
Lawler, S. (2002), Narrative in social research, in May, T. (Ed.), Qualitative Research in Action,
Sage, London, pp. 242-58.
Martin, J. (1999), Leadership in local government reform: strategic direction versus
administrative compliance, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 58 No. 3,
pp. 10-24.
Polkinghorne, D. (1988), Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences, State University of
New York Press, Albany, NY.

Rice, P. and Ezzy, D. (1999), Qualitative Research Methods, Oxford University Press,
South Melbourne.
Saldana, J. (2003), Longitudinal Qualitative Research: Analyzing Change through Time, Rowman
and Littlefield, Oxford.
Sarbin, T.R. (Ed.) (1986), Narrative Psychology: The Storied Nature of Human Conduct, Praeger,
New York, NY.
Schwandt, T.A. (2003), Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry, in Denzin, N. and
Lincoln, Y. (Eds), The Landscape of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 292-331.
Silverman, D. (Ed.) (1997), Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, Sage, London.
Suddaby, R. (2006), From the editors: what grounded theory is not, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 633-42.
Vince, A. (1997), Amalgamations, in Dollery, B. and Marshall, N. (Eds), Australian Local
Government: Reform and Renewal, Macmillan Education, Basingstoke, pp. 151-72.
White, H. (1981), The value of narrativity in the representation of reality, in Mitchell, W.J.T.
(Ed.), On Narrative, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 1-23.
Whitley, R.D. (1984), The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Further reading
Charmaz, K. (2000), Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods, in Denzin, N. and
Lincoln, Y. (Eds), The Landscape of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 249-91.
Glaser, B.G. (1994), More Grounded Theory Methodology: A Reader, Sociology Press,
Mill Valley, CA.
Glaser, B.G. (1996) in Kaplin, W.D. (Ed.), Gerund Grounded Theory: The Basic Social Process
Dissertation, Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967), Discovery of Grounded Theory, Aldine, Chicago, IL.
About the authors
Janet Bryant teaches sociology and research methods at Swinburne University. Research
interests include social policy on youth homelessness; her current doctoral study of changes to
public sector management; and, participation in action research to augment students real world
learning via collaborative projects with Swinburnes Centre for Regional Development including
The Role of Regional Universities; and participation in a large intra-institutional Social
Indicators Project. Janet Bryant is the corresponding author and can be contacted
at: jbryant@swin.edu.au
Barbara Lasky, an Associate Professor, is the Academic Leader of the Business Enterprise
Group at Swinburne University of Technology, Division of Higher Education Lilydale. Her
research interests include issues of organisation behaviour and group dynamics, and action
research and narrative methodologies. She has published both nationally and internationally.
E-mail: blasky@swin.edu.au

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

A researchers
tale

193

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5648.htm

QROM
2,3

The singular view

in management case studies
Sue Llewellyn

194

The Management Centre, The University of Leicester, Leicester, UK, and

Deryl Northcott
The Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to challenge the conventional wisdom in qualitative case study research
that the findings of the case depend on the identification of common themes across the statements of
multiple case informants (usually, as expressed at interview).
Design/methodology/approach This is a methodological paper that uses a published work to
illustrate its arguments. It explores research on the meaning and significance of politically and
culturally sensitive emergent change.
Findings The paper finds that, during such change, many respondents may not accurately discern
the direction of travel in their organization and, hence, gathering evidence on common views may
not be a productive research strategy.
Research limitations/implications It was only possible to use one illustration (politically and
culturally sensitive emergent change); other scenarios where the singular view may be significant
were, therefore, not covered.
Practical implications Ultimately, the findings of a case study may have to rely on insights from
just one respondent.
Originality/value This paper argues that for some research agenda singular views may be more
insightful than common themes. It also discusses the development of research that is prompted by a
singular view.
Keywords Qualitative research, Case studies, Research methods, Interviews
Paper type Conceptual paper

Qualitative Research in Organizations

and Management: An International
Journal
Vol. 2 No. 3, 2007
pp. 194-207
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1746-5648
DOI 10.1108/17465640710835355

Introduction
Only one person holds the singular view. Along with being unique, the singular view
also connotes the idea of an extraordinary insight or a particularly perceptive
understanding of the significance of a situation. This paper is concerned with the
validity of the singular view in the context of qualitative management research that
seeks to uncover the sense and significance [1] of organizational situations (or events).
This type of research is by no means the only kind of qualitative research
undertaken in the field of management. Qualitative management research can also be
focussed on discovering the characteristics (or defining features) of situations, events
or institutions. There is no hard and fast distinction between sense and significance
and characteristics indeed, often the latter have to be defined before the former can
be debated! Nevertheless, research that is primarily concerned with sense and
significance is relatively frequent in qualitative work. This distinction between
characteristics and sense and significance (essentially, the difference between
what is this? and what does this mean?) is important in the context of the value of

the singular view, hence it is discussed further in the illustrative example (set out
later) that forms the core of this paper.
The illustrative example used is a (now) published paper by the authors where the
value of the evidence we obtained from our singular respondent was at first, challenged
by the reviewers on the grounds that it was not representative. Subsequently, as tends
to be the norm in the pragmatic world of academic publishing, we addressed the
reviewers concerns in the way they indicated would be acceptable to them, through
further substantiating evidence (that in our case became available over time). However,
we are not necessarily arguing for such longitudinal triangulation in this paper.
Although such strategies may be helpful and will increase general confidence in
research findings, in this paper we wish to explore a situation where reliance on a
singular view unsupported by other evidence is valid.
Even in the context of work concerned with the sense and significance of events
(rather than their characteristics), qualitative researchers have been reluctant to trust
insights unless they are fairly widely held; they have followed quantitative researchers
in placing more reliance on majority rather than minority views. This paper discusses
why this is the case and argues that under many circumstances encountered in
qualitative management research it may actually be necessary to discount the common
view in favour of the singular one.
Where circumstances are complex and changing, when conditions pertain that
have not been encountered before, when situations are highly politicised and where there
are many stakeholders with different agenda, it is hardly surprising that there are
multiple and different assessments of whats going on. Moreover, any view on whats
going on is a view from somewhere; by definition the views of stakeholders will be
views from the social and political stake that they have in the situation (or event).
Amongst these stakeholder views there are likely to be some based on more knowledge
than others, some that are formed on superior judgements to others and some from
positions that give more insight than others into whats going on. Hence, one may
conclude that amongst the many conflicting views that may arise over the meaning and
significance of a situation some views will be closer to the mark than others.
Ultimately, at a particular point in time, there could be just one person who has got it
right.
If it is conceded that the singular view may be the most insightful one, why has case
study research (which actually rests on the proposition that there is something to
be learned from the single case) always sought multiple sources of evidence within the
single case? This puzzle is explored next before the case for the singular view is made
(and explained in relation to a specific example of empirical research).
Why have we sought the common view in qualitative management case
studies?
Qualitative management case studies generally seek to establish whats going on in
any organization with primary reference to the views of multiple rather than single
informants (often in conjunction with multiple rather than single sources of
documentary evidence). As argued in the introduction, in terms of establishing the key
characteristics (or the what is this?) of any situation or event this approach is
generally the most valid one. However, because of the issues discussed earlier
(i.e. differential stakeholder perspectives, knowledge bases, judgement abilities and

Singular view
in management

195

QROM
2,3

196

access to information) the more the merrier method may not be the most productive
when it comes to working out the what does this mean? aspect of whats going on.
This section discusses two interconnected issues that have tended to stop qualitative
researchers sometimes taking a risk and going with a singular view, these are
the history of the development of qualitative research and the role of theory in
qualitative work. Both of these matters are of huge significance in their own right;
what follows is only an attempt to sketch some brief comments pertaining to the main
focus of this paper.
The development of qualitative research
Proponents of qualitative management case study research struggled to establish its
legitimacy in the context of the dominant positivist paradigm resting on tenets derived
from scientific work, i.e. rigorous testing, quantitative evidence, validity, predictability,
reliability, and generalization (Scapens, 1990; Llewellyn, 1992). Detractors of case
studies dismissed them with such descriptors as anecdotal, unsubstantiated, and
subjective. Most damning of all was the indictment that case studies were
unscientific. But there was an issue that was even more significant than combating
this criticism in the development of the case study this was simply that the case
study was a new research approach. Even those advocating the case study inevitably
began to understand their new methods in the light of positivism as the scientific
method in social science. Consequently, researchers tended to argue the case for case
studies largely by trying to meet some of the criteria for good research adopted by
the scientific community. Rather than develop new criteria for judging the value of
qualitative case study research and some fresh linguistic terms for describing its
central tenets[2], qualitative researchers developed their methods largely from within
the dominant paradigm of scientific research. This does not deny that there were
battles between case study researchers and positivists; indeed, for some time now,
self-avowed positivists have been hard to find within social science (Bryman, 1988).
But, despite all the rhetorical distancing from positivism, in the qualitative camp there
continued to be a dominant concern with issues around the representativeness of
data and the generalizability of case study findings. And these criteria are, basically,
derived from the scientific method. If the intent of the qualitative research
under discussion is to discover the key characteristics of a situation or event (i.e.
working out what is this?) then a concern with representativeness and
generalizability is, usually, appropriate. But, if the focus is primarily on figuring out
the sense and significance of whats going on then these criteria are less relevant.
Indeed, on occasions, they may impede rather than assist the research investigation.
The concern with representativeness will be discussed first. One classic text in the
development of research methodology in social sciences is Winch. He challenges
John Stuart Mill whom he quotes as stating . . . understanding a social institution
consists in observing regularities in the behaviour of its participants and expressing
these regularities in the form of a generalisation (Winch, 1990, p. 86). Winch argues
that Mills view is still very influential in the work of contemporary social scientists.
Regularities (or frequent occurrences) should be the focus of any social research and
the occurrence of these regularities makes researchers confident of generalizing from
their observations. If researchers are primarily concerned with regularities in
behaviour then representativeness is of prime significance because without adequate

coverage the regularity (or pattern) in the observed behaviour may not be discernible.
This early concern with regularity and, hence, representativeness, continued into
interview-based as opposed to observation-based research. The common theme in
interviews is equivalent to the regularity in behaviour that Mill stressed. Underlying
this approach is an assumption that what is not exhibited as regular behaviour, or
what is not echoed as a common theme, lacks significance. What is not regular or
common becomes, by implication, arbitrary or even senseless at least so far as the
research investigation is concerned. But although Winch (1990, pp. 86-91) was also
concerned with regularities[3], he critiqued Mill because Winch was an early exponent
of the view that identifying behavioural regularities in social science must encompass
the perspective of the agent, which, in turn, makes reference to the cultural context
within which the agent acts.
The case study methodology grew from the ideas of Winch (and others) that
understanding social phenomena involves an appreciation of the context within which
they occur indeed, the case study method embodies the notion that it is frequently
impossible to discern any strict boundary between social phenomena and context. This
conceptualisation of understanding challenged the idea that the observation of
social behaviour was sufficient as a research method in social science because it is
impossible to have an adequate understanding of context without grasping the context
that the human agent perceives for her or his behaviour. So the case study
methodology emphasises contextual understanding but, despite this focus on context,
a concern with representativeness (to capture regularities) remains. Perhaps, the most
quoted source on the case study is Yin (1989, p. 23); here is his definition:
A case study is an empirical inquiry that:
investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when
the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which
multiple sources of evidence are used.

The what is this? question of characteristics is implicit in Yins idea of an

investigation. The related question of what does this mean? is not ruled out in Yins
formulation of the case study, but is not so evident. The idea of representativeness is
expressed through Yins insistence on multiple sources of evidence. The implication
is that researchers can be more confident of their findings when many informants offer
the same conclusions. They are also reassured that they are on the right path when
different types of evidence (e.g. observation, interviews, and documentary sources)
point in the same direction. Other authors have referred to the garnering of multiple
sources of evidence as triangulation. For example, Sayer (1992, p. 223) describes a
. . . triangulation process in search of inconsistencies, mis-specifications and
omissions. The idea is that through triangulation a researcher will be more sure
that inconsistencies have been resolved, mis-specifications erased and omissions
avoided. But this concern with triangulation (or multiple sources of evidence) to ensure
representativeness makes more sense with regard to identifying the characteristics of
an event than to discerning its meaning. But before pursuing this in more depth, this
section turns finally to exploring, briefly, a concept that is closely related to
representativeness the idea of generalization.
Generalization is related to the idea of representativeness because if researchers are
sure of the representativeness of their data in case studies, then they will be confident of
generalizing to other cases where the same circumstances hold. Again Yin (1989, p. 38)

Singular view
in management

197

QROM
2,3

198

has been influential in setting out an understanding of what is implied by generalization

in relation to case studies. He makes a distinction between statistical and analytic (or
theoretical) generalization, stating:
In statistical generalization, an inference is made about a population (or universe) on the basis
of empirical data collected about a sample . . . [He warns] A fatal flaw in doing case studies is to
conceive of statistical generalization as the method of generalizing the results of the case . . . [He
asserts]. . . the method of generalization [in case studies] is analytic generalization in which a
previously developed theory is used as a template with which to compare the empirical results
of the case study. If two or more cases support the same theory, replication may be claimed.

So Yins idea here is that if the researchers have analysed cases with similar
circumstances, and if the results of the cases support the same theory, confidence in
this theory is strengthened. The significance of theory for case studies goes back to the
emphasis on contextual understanding. As argued above, Winch and others asserted
the need to understand context from the point of view of the case participants, but their
understanding may not be exhaustive. There may well be wider contextual issues that
transcend the understanding of the case participants. To achieve this broader view a
theoretical framing of the case is required.
The role of theory in qualitative work
Appropriate theorization frames (or extends) mere information from the case and turns
it into useful knowledge, so Theorization (or conceptual framing) is the value-added
of qualitative academic research (Llewellyn, 2003). This value-added merger
between the views of informants and academic theory is not, however, easily
accomplished nor is it immune from challenge. In interview work in case studies there
is an uneasy balance between merely reproducing and legitimising an existing theory
(through simply illuminating or giving life to theory through the selective use of
quotes) or relying solely on an ethnographic account, which taps only into the limited
perspective of the case informants (Llewellyn, 2003; Wainwright, 1997).
If qualitative management research takes the statements of informants on whats
going on as a starting point but adds value by extending (or even challenging) their
views, it is hardly surprising that there is an emphasis on the common view to
demonstrate both that the opinions of informants have been adequately canvassed (the
representativeness issue) and that their ideas link substantively into the proposed
conceptual frame (the validity of theorization issue). Silverman (2001, p. 223), for
example, advises qualitative researchers to pay attention to two problems identified by
Fielding and Fielding (1986, p. 32):
. . .a tendency to select their data to fit an ideal conception (preconception) of the phenomenon
[and] a tendency to select field data which are conspicuous because they are exotic at the
expense of less dramatic (but possibly indicative) data.

He goes on to argue, drawing on Mehan (1979) and Bryman (1988), that the
representativeness of the interview data selected is of prime significance when
assessing qualitative research. The approach to theorization that Silverman is
discussing here is a broadly deductive one (i.e. using theory to explain key issues, in
particular ones that are only partially understood by the case informants). But this
concern with representativeness is also very apparent in the inductive approach to
theorizing in case studies and this is explained next.

In their text The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Glaser and Strauss (1967, p. 2)
linked the usefulness of qualitative research to the possibility of generating inductive
theory; they stated that, The basic theme in our book is the discovery of theory from
data systematically obtained from social research. Their description of the data
collection process as systematic implied that qualitative evidence is collected in a
planned and logical manner. The adoption of systematic-ness of course, aligned their
approach to the scientific method. The later related work undertaken by Strauss and
Corbin (1990) went one step further through popularising the notion of applying data
coding and analysis techniques to qualitative data. Again the implication was that it
was desirable (and, even more significantly, it was possible) to take a scientific
approach to the discovery of common themes in qualitative data. Moreover, potentially,
the use of these coding methods would allow an audit trail of how the theory was
generated from the evidence of these common themes. With such an approach
potentially all researchers would propose the same grounded theory from the same
qualitative database.
To summarize on this section, the focus on the common view in case studies
stemmed from two broad issues: the history of the development of qualitative research
and the role of theory. The legitimacy of the case study, as a scientific method[4], was
at stake in relation to both of these. As a new methodology, how could the findings of
qualitative case studies be defended from accusations of lack of scientific rigour? If
theory is the value-added of qualitative case study work (and can enable
generalization), how can the validity of this theory be established in relation to the
findings of the case?
The common view came to the rescue in answer to both questions. First, reliance
on the common view links into the scientific criterion of representativeness and echoes
the scientific idea of picking up on the regularities or pattern in the data. Second, if
the theorization of the case can be shown to link into the common view then
accusations that theory has been imposed on the case in accordance with the
predilections of the researchers can be warded off. The essential problem with this
adherence to the common view is that it makes much more sense in relation to the
characteristics of the research phenomenon than in relation to its meaning and
significance. In social science, meaning and significance is usually much more
important than characteristics. As argued earlier, ultimately, at a certain point in time,
there may be only one respondent who discerns the meaning and significance of an
organizational change.
The average hospital: case details and discussion
To illustrate how a singular view can be key to qualitative management research, this
paper explores an interview-based empirical project (Llewellyn and Northcott, 2005).
The project focused on the introduction of a mandatory form of costing in English
hospitals[5] the National Reference Costing Exercise (NRCE).
In 1998, the UK New Labour Government introduced a requirement for all NHS
hospitals to report their costs across the range of clinical activities undertaken[6].
Everything from a hip replacement to a course of treatment for bronchopneumonia to the
removal of an in-growing toenail would have a cost attached and that cost would be known
for each and every hospital. The exercise was complex and the cost data was vast; by
2002 alone it had encompassed 2.1 million items (Department of Health, 2002a, p. 39).

Singular view
in management

199

QROM
2,3

200

Yet despite this complexity, a costing index was compiled that ranked hospitals on their
relative cost efficiency, by assigning them a single score [7]. This index was politically
sensitive; the fact that a hospital was a 67 or an 156 was publicly available
information, so hospitals which were outliers sometimes found themselves featuring in
the local press as either very cost efficient and successful or failing and wasting
resources. The index was also part of a package of indicators that were used to judge the
performance of hospital managers so careers could be at stake. Because the index put
managers under pressure they responded by exhorting clinicians to consider the
cost-efficiency of their clinical practice more carefully, so the NRCE was often the cause of
internal hospital conflict.
There is a lot more that could be said about the characteristics of the exercise but, in
brief, the research phenomenon under investigation was a mandatory form of hospital
costing that took clinical interventions[8] as the cost object. The main powerful
stakeholder groups involved were: politicians (who initiated the exercise); regulators
(who ran the technical aspects of the cost-data collection); managers (who collected the
data and who were held to account for the results); clinicians (whose work activities
were being costed); and latterly management consultants who came on board
(as hospitals began to rely on them for help with the analysis and presentation of their
costs). The research project set out to investigate the meaning and significance of this
costing exercise through asking members of the stakeholder groups what they thought
was going on. A total of 38 interviews were carried out with personnel involved in
the NRCE.
Initially at least, stakeholders varied enormously in their assessments of the
significance of the NRCE. Clinicians in particular were inclined to be dismissive, even
to ridicule the exercise, possibly in the hope that it could not be made to stick! In the
early days, the reported HRG costs varied tremendously. For example, a primary hip
replacement could apparently cost between 213 and 19,960 (Department of Health,
1998). Many clinicians cited this extreme variability in support of the it may be getting
into the press but it wont work view. One clinician said:
. . . you still see in the [news]papers comments like in some hospitals it [an HRG] is ten times
the expense to do in others, which is clearly not true. It just means that the costings are very,
very imprecise . . . it [the NRCE] gets rubbished [by some clinicians and managers] because it
cant be true some of the costings that you see. I mean you cant do hips for 190 pounds or
something . . . So some of the figures that appear are just ridiculous and the sad thing is that
they are taken semi seriously in the [news] articles.

When the HRG categories were set up clinicians were involved. This involvement was,
in part, to take advantage of their technical expertise but also attempted to engage their
commitment to the NRCE. One clinician responded to the idea of his colleagues
caring about the NRCE as follows:
Well the ones [clinicians] who care [about costing] cant really agree with each other, but most
clinicians couldnt care less anyway! The answer is who gives a monkeys about HRGs?

On the other hand, in the political world, people did give a monkeys; the politicians
had instigated the NRCE so, not surprisingly, in political realms it was taken very
seriously. One hospital manager reported that:

Everything that moves [now] seems to have an HRG associated with it and, hence, a reference
cost . . . a memo on some minor refinements [to the reference costs] was copied from the Chief
Statistician at the Department of Health to the Secretary of State! Its at that level of interest,
help!

A finance director at one of the hospitals pointed out that not only were the
government serious about the NRCE, but also they were determined to make it
work:
You know that the Secretary of State has a timetable by which he wants reference costs to
cover the entire range of NHS activity, that is national policy and that is set.

So stakeholders differed in their assessments of the importance of the NRCE. If the

significance of any social phenomenon is low, generally people would not be too
concerned about what it means. Individuals follow the premise that if something is not
important then they probably do not need to worry about its meaning. The corollary
also holds, if something is (or can be portrayed as) meaningless then this is strong
evidence that it is insignificant.
In the case of the NRCE, many clinicians were convinced (or convinced themselves)
that the variability in the data rendered the exercise meaningless, so they were inclined
to dismiss it as probably insignificant in the longer term. On the other hand, the
government was evidently for real about the NRCE and was intent on making it
significant. What did the NRCE mean for the government? What did they want to
achieve through it? Their stated intention was performance management and the
raising of standards; in the 1997 White Paper The new NHS: modern, dependable
they explained:
Our new approach will tackle unacceptable variations in performance and raise overall
standards across the NHS. We will achieve this by comparing, not competing, by sharing
information and comparing performance; not by financial competition. Unit cost information
is a central feature of this new approach.

But some stakeholders thought that the governments intentions were rather more
robust! A management consultant opined:
Reference costs give managers the ability to go to doctors and to start to beat them
around the head, which is what the government wants managers to do to doctors for the
most part . . . now there is real power for managers to take direct action against
clinicians before it was impossible, even when you knew that harm was occurring to
patients.

Why did the NRCE give power to managers to control clinicians? The answer is that
although the index reported just one cost figure for each hospital, this index was
compiled from very detailed information that included costs for individual clinicians.
These individual costs allowed managers to challenge clinicians where their practice
was more costly than their peers for, apparently, no good reason. One manager
commented:
So why does Mr X [consultant] cost double Mr Y? Our consultants are very different; one
wonders why one does far more day cases than another and why one is far more conservative
at keeping patients in than another. The useful information challenges practice and says
your cost per hernia is double what this one is.

Singular view
in management

201

QROM
2,3

202

And also on the theme of challenging clinical practice a regulator remarked:

At one Trust orthopaedics was very expensive and they boiled it down to one consultant. He
did his ward rounds before the physio came around on a Friday afternoon and the consultant
wouldnt discharge them until after they had seen the physio. So every one of his patients had a
3 day longer length of stay because none of them were discharged until Monday . . . The nurses
realised but there was no common communication the nurses never got to tell anyone. But
when people start talking money, it brings it into common terms and people start listening.

But before the managers could use cost data to challenge clinical practice, the data had
to have more credibility than it had at the beginning of the NRCE, or else the clinicians
would continue to rubbish it. The regulators thought part of the answer to be a
reconciliation back to the financial accounts. One advised:
We do a check. What I did last year was a 30 percent check on reconciling back to the final
accounts. If they were more than 1 percent out they were sent back. Because it is fast track
information, we accept a 1 percent variation.

But another even more powerful incentive for hospitals to report accurate data is to
fund on the basis of it. This is another view from a regulator:
We have always said that if you reimburse people on the basis of the data that they submit
for reference costs then the data they submit will start to become more accurate. If you say
that you can do a hip replacement for six pounds and you get reimbursed on that basis then
people will start to do it right.

As with respect to the characteristics of the NRCE, there is much more that could be
said with regard to its meaning and significance. But a few things become clear
through the above quotations. In terms of the differential stakeholder perspectives
discussed earlier, clinicians were likely to lose power (or at any rate stood to lose some
control over their clinical practice) through the introduction of the NRCE. This gave
them an incentive to argue that it was going to be insignificant in the longer term,
indeed many clearly believed that it was rather meaningless and, hence, it was likely to
go away. In contrast, politicians as the owners of the exercise were determined that it
would be a significant and meaningful intervention in health care. Regulators were
accountable for making the exercise a success; hence they were also likely to express
views that accorded significance to the NRCE. Managers were in a more equivocal
position. On the one hand, they were expected to challenge clinical practice on the basis
of the NRCE; this gave them an incentive to argue for the robustness of the data. On the
other hand, this positioning made for internal conflict with the clinicians, so for
those managers averse to conflict there may well have been an inducement to
downplay the exercise.
So, clearly, differing perspectives, knowledges and judgements led stakeholders to
view the NRCE in very different ways. As argued earlier the governments stated
intent for the exercise was tackling variations in performance and raising standards,
but was there more to it than this? Initially there was just one respondent who
suggested that there was.
The singular view
One clinical director (a clinician with management responsibilities) made the following
observation:

I think that the problem with the way things are being generated at the moment is that they
[the government] are seeking to make everyone as average as they can and I, personally, dont
think that that is a good thing (Clinical Director at an NHS Trust).

This comment implied that the meaning of the governments proposal to tackle
variations in performance and raise standards, was actually to make everyone as
average as they can. Why might that be the case and what other evidence from the
respondents indirectly supported this view?
It is clear from some of the above quotes that the government wanted to use the
NRCE exercise to empower managers to take action against clinicians. One view was
that reference costs gave managers a weapon to beat them [clinicians] around the
head with. Another was that reference costs were . . . useful information [that]
challenges [clinician] practice and says your cost per hernia is double what this one
is. Such insights suggest that wherever clinical practice looked out of line and,
particularly, where idiosyncrasy increased cost (for example the clinician described
above who kept all his/her patients in over the weekend), managers would put pressure
on clinicians to conform to standards that brought their costs down. But this evidence
suggests pressure to attain lower costs rather than average costs. One reason why
average costs may be more what government were aiming for lies in the propensity
of some hospitals not to take the NRCE seriously and report unrealistically low costs.
So long as some of the figures that appear are just ridiculous as one of the
clinicians quoted above reported, the NRCE lacked credibility. As one of the regulators
commented, a possible governmental response was to reimburse hospitals on the basis
of their reported costs (If you say that you can do a hip replacement for six pounds and
you get reimbursed on that basis then people will start to do it right). The problem with
this strategy from the governments perspective is that it gives an inherent
incentive to report high costs. Hence, along with the direct comment cited above, there
was other indirect evidence on the logic of the average cost as what the government
was aiming for.
In terms of the conduct of the research project, having heard this singular view on
making everyone as average as they can . . . other respondents were asked directly if
they thought that the government were seeking to make everyone as average as they
can. Some respondents said they did not agree with this and some looked blank, but a
few did concur. For example, one manager commented on the comfort factor of
having an average score on the index (this index was explained earlier):
There is a sense of comfort in being around the middle [on the Index] and not standing out too
much. Being cheap isnt bad, but obviously being expensive is going to make you a target and
it seems the standard at the moment is to be at 100 index or 99/98 to be cosy around the
middle.

But, even when prompted, there were only a few respondents who supported the idea of
the government seeking to make everyone as average as they can. Nevertheless, to the
research team, this view seemed to make sense. Therefore, theoretical backing was
sought for the idea. Two main sources were found for the propensity for both
categorization and measurement (key aspects of the NRCE) to result in more homogeneity
and, hence, more averageness. Bowker and Star (1999, p. 53) comment that all
classification systems increase comparability and averageness as peoples behaviour
and organizational practices are moulded so as to fit into pre-specified categories.

Singular view
in management

203

QROM
2,3

204

Latour (1993, p. 113) points out that all measures, . . . construct a commensurability that
did not exist before their calibration. HRG costing necessitated the classification,
counting and coding of clinical activities to categories. Latours work indicates that the
cost measurement of these HRGs to produce the index actually makes clinical work in
hospitals more commensurable and more standardized.
Nevertheless, despite this later theoretical support and the prompted views of a few
other respondents, just one person mooted the initial idea about averageness. And, on
the basis of this singular view, averageness became the central notion in the research
project for understanding the sense and significance of the NRCE.
Personal reflections and concluding comments
We now return to the earlier arguments about why minority rather than majority
views may be the most insightful when it comes to investigating the meaning and
significance of organizational events. This paper has argued that over an emergent
change scenario, such as the NRCE, there are likely to be multiple and conflicting
stakeholder views. Is it legitimate to privilege one view over the others? The contention
of this paper is Yes. A singular view may be based on more knowledge, may be
formed on a superior judgement and may be made from a position that gives
more insight into whats going on. In this research project, a clinical director
proposed the singular view about averageness. The role of clinical director combines
clinical and managerial expertise, so it has a wide knowledge base; also this position
gives more insight into whats going on than either the purely clinical or the solely
managerial perspectives (Llewellyn, 2001). In addition, it may be surmised that this
individual was simply more perceptive and, hence, formed a superior judgement when
it came to discerning the direction of travel in health care management.
Nevertheless, in the world of academic publishing, reviewers comments, even for
qualitative work, frequently focus on the extent of the evidence base for conclusions
drawn and the question of whether the results can be generalized. On the first
submission of this paper, our judgements about the government aiming for
averageness were felt to lack substance. As argued earlier, such responses are driven
by expectations that qualitative work can be judged against the criteria applied to
scientific research. We were asked to offer further evidence from the politicians
themselves that averageness was indeed being promoted and comment on whether
our findings could be generalized for example, to other countries. These reviewer
requirements posed difficulties for us! Given that the NRCE was a politically sensitive
initiative that was likely to elicit resistance from clinicians, is seems hardly likely that
the politicians would publicise any intent to promote averageness. On generalization
to other countries, it was impossible for us to say. The UK was the first country to
introduce a mandatory costing initiative like the NRCE and fund on the basis of it.
Therefore, at the time we undertook the study, the events surrounding the NRCE were
unique. Whether similar costing initiatives would have the same averaging effect in
other countries is unknown. One possibility is that knowledge of the impact of the
NRCE in the UK would lead some clinicians in other countries to oppose costing even
more vigorously and, therefore, avoid the averaging consequence. Such an
eventuality would not undermine the validity of the result in the UK it would merely
indicate that human beings learn from the experiences of others in how to derail a
change that threatens their interests!

As it happened, we were fortunate that within the extended time period that
academic reviewing occupies, two events occurred which lent additional weight to our
conclusions. The first was that quantitative evidence emerged on a convergence to the
average cost amongst English hospitals. The second was that the government did
make an announcement about their further intentions; they revealed that funding to
hospitals in the future would be made on the basis of a national tariff and the small
print showed that this tariff would be based on the average cost (Department of
Health, 2002b). With these two additional sources of evidence to draw upon in the
paper the reviewers were much more willing to be persuaded and, at the second review
stage, the basic premise of the paper was accepted. Although one of the reviewers
asked for further amendments, these were not concerned with the extent of the
evidence base for our arguments.
This convergence to the average cost and the governments announcement that they
intended to fund on the basis of the average cost were both fortuitous developments so
far as our quest to have our paper published was concerned as, in the reviewers eyes,
these were indications that our singular respondent was correct. However, even if these
developments had not occurred, our respondent could still have been right. The
government could have intended to make everyone as average as they can but failed. If,
for example, the clinicians had been successful in preventing the government from
implementing the NRCE, then the two events that were taken by the reviewers as
confirming evidence would not have taken place. This would not necessarily have
implied that our respondent was mistaken about both the governments intentions and
the change agenda that was being implemented; only that their intentions were not
ultimately realised and, hence, the direction of travel in healthcare organizations shifted
from one where averageness was becoming the norm to one where the status quo was
being re-instated. If the government had failed on this occasion, the value of our singular
view does not necessarily become obsolete; it may well function as an indication that the
government will try again, and, therefore, be predictive of their future intentions.
We have argued here that ideas about representativeness and generalizability are
much more applicable when management research is concerned with the characteristics
of a phenomenon than with its meaning and significance. Canvassing all opinions and
taking the common view on the NRCE was useful to fill out the detail on its
characteristics. But, when it came to the meaning and significance of the NRCE as a
politically inspired change, initially just one person discerned what was going on.
Notes
1. Although the terms sense and significance are related in everyday discourse this paper
uses them in somewhat different ways. Sense is taken as equivalent to meaning which
not only follows from individual sense-making, but hinges on how something is connected or
related to something else for example, how an event is connected into an episode or how
social actors are related in an organizational structure (Polkinghorne, 1988, p. 6; Llewellyn,
2003). Assessments of significance are taken as equivalent to the judged importance of an
event and may well vary more over time than views about meaning or sense. For example,
as organizational events unfold an event that was initially judged to be of little significance
may assume much greater importance as the context changes over time.
2. Initially, the task of developing new linguistic terms and judgement criteria for case study
research was probably largely impossible this development had to proceed in conjunction
with the development of the method itself.

Singular view
in management

205

QROM
2,3

206

3. Winch (1990), following Wittgenstein (1953), thinks that regularities follow from the
rule-based nature of social life.
4. Another approach that could have been taken by case study researchers was to deny that
scientific criteria were relevant to cases studies but, as argued earlier, this seemed to position
case studies as merely anecdotal, unsubstantiated and subjective. It is outside the scope of
this paper to report on new, non-scientific criteria for case studies, but see for example
Alvesson and Skoldberg (2000), Llewellyn (2003) and Sayer (1992).
5. The quotes in this section sometimes refer to hospitals as trusts, a label that reflects their
status as semi-autonomous entities within the NHS.
6. The NRCE began in elective surgery but has been progressively expanded since then.
7. An index score of 100 was an average cost performance, whereas scores above or below
100 indicated above or below average cost performance, respectively, e.g. a score of 102
reflects costs that are 2 percent above the average whereas a score of 98 may indicate a more
efficient hospital performance.
8. There are a huge number of possible clinical interventions. Consequently, the NRCE costed
clusters of them rather than single treatments. Each cluster was named a health resource
group (HRG). HRGs are a variant on the diagnostic related groups developed in the USA for
pricing healthcare services. The UK National Casemix Office constituted HRGs to . . . group
together treatments that are clinically similar, consume similar quantities of resources and
are likely to be similar in cost (Department of Health, 1998, p. 4).
References
Alvesson, M. and Skoldberg, K. (2000), Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative
Research, Sage, London.
Bowker, G.C. and Star, S.L. (1999), Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences, The
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Bryman, A. (1988), Quantity and Quality in Social Research, Unwin Hyman, London.
Department of Health (1998), The New NHS 1998 Reference Costs, NHS Executive, Leeds,
November.
Department of Health (2002a), Reference Costs 2002, NHS Executive, Leeds, November.
Department of Health (2002b), Reforming NHS Financial Flows: Introducing Payment by Results,
Department of Health, London, October.
Fielding, N.G. and Fielding, J.L. (1986), Linking Data, Sage, London.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, NY.
Latour, B. (1993), We Have Never Been Modern, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA,
C. Porter (trans).
Llewellyn, S. (1992), The role of case study methods in management accounting: a comment,
British Accounting Review, Vol. 24, pp. 17-31.
Llewellyn, S. (2001), Two-way windows: clinicians as medical managers, Organization
Studies, Vol. 22, pp. 593-624.
Llewellyn, S. (2003), What counts as theory in qualitative management and accounting
research? Introducing five levels of theorizing, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 662-708.
Llewellyn, S. and Northcott, D. (2005), The average hospital, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 555-83.

Mehan, H. (1979), Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Polkinghorne, D.E. (1988), Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences, State University of
New York Press, New York, NY.
Sayer, A. (1992), Method in Social Science, 2nd ed., Routledge, London.
Scapens, R. (1990), Researching management accounting practice: the role of case study
methods, British Accounting Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 260-79.
Silverman, D. (2001), Interpreting Qualitative Data, 2nd ed., Sage, London.
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J.M. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Wainwright, D. (1997), Can sociological research be qualitative, critical and valid?, The
Qualitative Report, Vol. 3 No. 2, available at: www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/wain.html
(accessed May 16, 2006).
Winch, P. (1990), The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy, 2nd ed., Routledge,
London.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953), Philosophical Investigations, Blackwell, London.
Yin, R.K. (1989), Case Study Research: Design and Method, Revised Edition, Sage, London.
Further reading
Department of Health (1997), The New National Health Service: Modern, Dependable, HMSO,
London.
Corresponding author
Sue Llewellyn can be contacted at: sl150@le.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Singular view
in management

207

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5648.htm

QROM
2,3

208

Introducing strong structuration

theory for informing qualitative
case studies in organization,
management and accounting
research
Lisa Jack
Department of Accounting, Finance and Management,
University of Essex, Colchester, UK, and

Ahmed Kholeif
Department of Accounting, Faculty of Commerce,
Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this paper is to present a reinforced version of structuration theory, known as
strong structuration theory, set out in Stones as a disciplined approach to qualitative case study
research in the organization, management and accounting fields. This framework challenges the belief
held by certain critics that structuration theory cannot be used in substantive empirical research but is
only a sensitising device or analytical tool.
Design/methodology/approach A conceptual discussion is the approach of the paper.
Findings The key concepts of strong structuration theory are outlined and then put in the context first
of two attempts to apply the framework to empirical research and second of two recent papers which
address theoretically informed qualitative research and the use of structuration theory in IT studies.
Research limitations/implications There are some limitations of this paper. The framework
offered was not used to set the original research questions in the two case studies employed as these
cases were conducted before the publication of Stones book in 2005. Also, as weaknesses in the
framework can best be assessed using empirical findings, a full evaluation cannot be carried out until
such research is undertaken.
Originality/value This paper draws on recent research and thinking in sociology that have yet to
be brought into case studies in the fields of accounting and management in particular.
Keywords Case studies, Accounting, Research methods
Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction
In the 20 years since the publication of Giddens (1984) The Constitution of Society
structuration theory has been widely used in organisation, management and
Qualitative Research in Organizations
and Management: An International
Journal
Vol. 2 No. 3, 2007
pp. 208-225
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1746-5648
DOI 10.1108/17465640710835364

The authors would like to acknowledge advice and comments from members of the Management
Control Association, colleagues at the University of Essex, Department of Accounting, Finance
and Management and the reviewers of earlier versions of their work. In particular, they would
like to thank the two anonymous reviewers of this paper for their helpful, and very challenging,
comments.

accounting qualitative research. Baxter and Chua (2003, p. 100) observe that
structuration theory has provided a small but distinctive contribution to management
accounting[1]. Pozzobon (2004, p. 268) discusses the growing use of the theory in
strategic management studies and the use of the theory has been developed in
information technology research by Orlowski (1991) and more recently Pozzebon and
Pinsonneault (2005). Moreover, a number of organisation studies by Willmott, Roberts
and others are included in Brandt and Jarys (1996) definitive collection of Giddens
work on structuration theory and its influence. However, the use of structuration
theory is problematic: the complexity of the theory can mean that its use is somewhat
selective and lop-sided to use Whittingtons (1992, p. 693) term. More crucially, there
are fundamental areas of underdevelopment in Giddens work, such as the relationship
between agents, structures and external pressures, and there has been significant
debate about the central tenet of the duality of structure from critics such as Mouzelis
and Archer (Parker, 2000). The applicability of the theory to empirical research has
also been considered doubtful by Baumann, Thrift, Gregson and others who see
Giddens as a meta-theorist (Stones, 1996, pp. 115-117) and the majority of studies
employ the tool as an analytical device or as Giddens himself put it, a sensitising
device (Giddens, 1984, p. 231, 1989, p. 294; MacIntosh and Scapens, 1990, p. 469).
A recent book by Stones (2005), a sociologist who has written and debated on these
matters over the last 15 years, distils the criticism, debate and enhancements of
structuration theory into a form that he terms Strong Structuration Theory. This is
not an alternative version of Giddens theory but an attempt to provide a strengthened
version of the theory that has developed among current sociological thinkers which
will be primarily of use in empirical research. Recent reviews of Stones (2005)
Structuration Theory have recognised this work as being a substantive and
considerable development in the theory (Edwards, 2006, p. 911) and the most serious
attempt to date to give structuration theory a new lease of life (Parker, 2006, p. 122).
Parker (2006) goes as far as to say that Stones provides a radically different and
original theory to Giddens, despite being grounded in Giddens structuration theory.
Anyone attempting to explain or apply structuration theory has to consider the
structure/agency debate [that] continues to haunt organizational studies as Reed
(1997, p. 22) puts it. Stones (2005) does not solve the duality-dualism divide or the
problematic of critical realism as put in opposition to structuration theory (Parker,
2000)[2] although he has contended elsewhere that the realism-structure divide is not
irreconcilable (Stones, 2001). However, Edwards (2006, p. 913) is of the opinion that
Stones (2005) does provide a valuable contribution to the debate and will be used to
inform future research studies. Parker (2000, p. 137) acknowledges the contribution to
the debate and the positive implications of the work as a research guide but is
ultimately unconvinced that the problematic has gone away: he argues for the critical
realist approach of Archer and others (Parker, 2000, p. 138).
Users of structuration theory must be prepared to accept that the duality of structure
and the problematic nature of understanding the objective-subject nature of human
beings. Later in the paper, the use of position-practices in Stones (2005) formulation of
strong structuration theory is outlined. Earlier versions of this paper elicited the enquiry
why not use actor-network theory instead? Part of the answer lies in whether or not the
researcher wishes to investigate the role of structure in the matter under investigation.
Actor-network theory (like ethnomethodology and Foucaldian approaches)

Strong
structuration
theory
209

QROM
2,3

210

relies on the disruption of the dichotomy between structure and agency altogether (Steen
et al., 2006, p. 303; Reed, 1997, p. 23), whereas structuration theory relies on the identity
of action and structure. Here, the authors are to some extent experimenting with theory
by asking what the applications to research are if the duality of structure is accepted: the
subject of the paper is not a justification duality of structure against dualism or
non-structural ontologies. However, would be researchers need to confront this debate
for themselves. Actor network theory is addressed again later in the paper.
The authors believe that the framework offered by Stones (2005) has significant
potential for qualitative researchers in organisation, accounting and management and
that conversely, these fields offer a prime field in which to test the worth of the
framework. The key strength of Stones work is that it presents a well articulated,
ontologically sound argument for the development of structuration theory, which has a
much wider value than other empirically based approaches in the organisation and
management field, such as the recent study by Pozzebon and Pinsonneault (2005).
The contribution that the authors are seeking to make is not only in the introduction
of a new theoretical framework to their field of research. Underlying this is the
promotion of the case study as a means of experimenting with theory, testing it and
teasing it out using the empirical data whilst at the same time using the theory to mine
ever further to get that data. To that extent, there is much in common with Eisenhardt
(1989) on using case studies to build theory and Lee (1989) on case studies as
experimentation, rather than case studies as almost quantitative analyses of data (Yin,
1981) or as action research (Park, 2001). It certainly resonates with the more recent
exposition by Ahrens and Chapman (2006) on qualitative research and theory, which is
discussed below. Both theoretically and practically however, what is developed here is
the role of the researcher as an investigator, not just as an observer, interested stranger
or participant.
The first section of this paper simply offers an introduction to Stones (2005)
conception of strong structuration theory, emphasising three key contributions for
organisation research, namely the claim that structuration theory can be used
meaningfully for empirical work by providing an ontology in situ to support
Giddens ontology in general; the concept of a sliding ontological scale and of the
quadripartite nature of structuration. Stones framework for empirical study is then
presented, which has at its centre the identification of an agent in situ and develops
to identify the internal and external agents and structures associated with that pivotal
agent, and the importance of using the methodological bracketing of institutional
analysis and agents conduct analysis which is a key element of Giddens theory.
Because the aim of this paper is to set out the theory for consideration by researchers,
the discussion that follows is focussed on two areas. The first of these areas reflects on
two attempts to apply Stones theory in accounting contexts: one on the
institutionalisation of accounting practices in UK agriculture in the post war period
and the other on the introduction of an IT system as part of a programme sponsored by
the EU/Mediterranean programme. The second area puts what is offered here in the
context of two very recent papers, Ahrens and Chapman (2006) on the development of
theory and case studies generally and Pozzebon and Pinsonneault (2005) more
specifically on the use of structuration theory in IT studies.

An introduction to strong structuration theory

In his book, Structuration Theory, Stones (2005) synthesizes criticism of Giddens
structuration theory in the two decades since the publication of The Constitution of
Society (Giddens, 1984), to suggest a reinforced ontology that allows substantive
empirical research to be developed using the theory. Arguing that Giddens operates on
the level of ontology-in-general Stones (2005, p. 75) argues for the development of
structuration theory to encompass ontology-in-situ and the ontic: structure and
action are not contemplated in abstract but observed in concrete situations, through the
why, where and what of everyday occurrence, and through understanding the
dispositions and practices of agents. A structuration study is one that involves
hermeneutics as well as structural analysis (Stones, 2005, pp. 81-2), and preserves the
central tenet of the duality of structure (Giddens and Pierson, 1998, p. 78). Stones term
for this reinforced version is strong structuration theory.
One of the other strengths of Stones (2005) work is to reintroduce epistemology and
methods back into structuration theory. Giddens work on structuration theory was
deliberately focused on ontology, which at the time he felt was more neglected. His
approach to empirical method was minimalist (Stones, 2005, p. 13; Giddens, 1984,
p. 231). The broad epistemological approach in Giddens structuration theory is that
knowledge is socially constructed and that all human beings are knowledgeable
agents. The knowledge of actions and structure of the context in which they act and the
conduct that follows are the subject of research. The purpose of structuration
investigations is to elicit that knowledge from actors and from their context.
A structuration study is one that considers both hermeneutics and diagnostics of
structure (Stones, 2005, p. 133). It also follows that the researcher must be aware of
their own context and conduct in understanding actions and diagnosing structure. In
this however, they are no different to any other critical theorist in having to consider
distance and de-familiarisation in their reflections (Alvesson and Deetz, 2000, p. 174)
and the dangers of privileging certain voices (Putnam et al., 1993, p. 232).
The first key element of strong structuration theory that develops the original
theory is the meso-level ontological concept. If ontology in general operates at an
abstract level, and the ontic at the level of concrete details and specificities (Stones,
2005, p. 77), then the value of the meso-level ontology in situ is that the researcher can
then analyze action and structure in relative terms: more or less knowledgeability, for
example (Stones, 2005, p. 78). It provides a sliding scale on which to locate a particular
study (Stones, 2005, p. 78). In an earlier work, Stones presented the idea that
structuration studies may be characterized by the depth of contextualization, from an
in-depth concrete study of an individual through to an abstract sweep of historical and
global phenomena (more characteristic of Giddens own work), and the sliding scale is
a development of this idea (Stones, 1996, pp. 74-5). Meso-level studies may not cover
every nook (Stones, 1996, p. 83) and the researcher may be placed outside or above the
situation under view. But wherever placed on the scale, the researcher then needs to
strive for a sufficiently discriminating, austerely delimiting, focus of attention on a
restricted number of germane points on the historical and geographical landscape
(Stones, 1996, p. 82), within which patterns of action and structure may be drawn out
and raised for inspection.
At this point, Stones takes Cohens development of structuration theory to
encompass position-practices and further develops it to point out that the proper realm

Strong
structuration
theory
211

QROM
2,3

212

of position-practices is the meso or intermediate zone (Stones, 1996, p. 83). From there
the researcher can examine the networks and relationships between clusters of agents
within the delimited landscape they are observing part of an organization, for
example, or a department, or a government. Position-practices were posited by Cohen
(1989), drawing on the work of Bhaskar (1979), to provide what Thrift (1985, p. 618)
saw as the missing institutional link in Giddens work. Structuration theory hangs on
the methodological bracketing of institutional analysis and strategic (or agents)
conduct analysis (Giddens, 1984; Scapens and Macintosh, 1996; Stones, 1996, 2005).
Within that bracketing, Giddens used the term social positions as providing an
identity, prerogatives and obligations: specific institutional roles are a sub-set of social
positions, but the weakness is that he does not explain how these are fully reproduced
in the duality of structure (Cohen, 1989, p. 208). Social identity may explain how
structures persist but not how the actions of the incumbents of the positions reproduce
those identities structures run the danger of being reified, which is the problem the
duality of structure seeks to avoid. The work of Bhaskar (1979), in turn, envisages
practices of actors (in clustered groups) as creating structure, but Cohen dislikes the
notion that positions are slots into which actors are placed; this ignores the fact that
actors can take, modify and abandon roles rather than act within roles assigned to
them (Cohen, 1989, p. 209).
Stones (2005, p. 62) adopts Cohens (1989, p. 210) delineation of position-practices[3]
which enables the researcher to stress:
. . . the enactment of identities, prerogatives and obligations so as to form a link between
structure and agency. To speak, for example, of . . . a Chief Executive Officer, is not only to
refer to a positional identity, but also to a set of structured practices which
position-incumbents can and do perform [whether the incumbent chooses to act as
expected or to do otherwise].

Position-practice relations may be traced out or mapped (Cohen, 1989, p. 211):

examples might be vertical hierarchical relations between levels of employees and
management in a firm, or the horizontal relations between clusters of academics and
administrators in different disciplines within a university (Cohen, 1989, p. 212). Stones
(2005, p. 94) mappings between clusters of actors are webs of polygonal links between
agents in focus and external structures. Stones also claims that these networks of
position-practices within the quadripartite model of structuration that he proposes
(see below) address another criticism of Thrift (1996, p. 54) that Giddens
over-emphasis on action as individual . . . never fully considers the ghost of
networked others that continually informs action.
At this point, certain readers have asked why this methodology should be used
rather than actor-network theory, which is ostensibly very similar in concept. The key
difference, as has been mentioned above, is that whilst the central tenet of structuration
theory is the duality of structure and whilst critical realists and other critics assert
dualism, actor-network theory:
. . . not only effaces the analytical divisions between agency and structure, and the macro- and
the micro-social, but it also asks us to treat different materials people, machines, ideas
and all the rest as interactional effects rather than primitive causes (Law, 1992, p. 5).

As in Giddens structuration theory, Law (1992, p. 7) claims, structure is a verb not a

noun, and is not free-standing, like scaffolding on a building-site, but a site of struggle,

a relational effect that recursively generates and reproduces itself. The point is that
for actor network theorists organisations and other structures are networks which
come to look like single point actors (Law, 1992, p. 2): for structurationists, agency and
structure are always present together, separately identifiable but not identical.
Actor-network theory and strong structuration theory both purport to address the
ontological and methodological weaknesses in Giddens structuration theory, particularly
its tendency to abstraction and difficulty of application to the ontic as Stones (2005)
terms it. The difference in approach is that whilst, as Parker (2006, p. 132) notes, Stones
strong structuration theory is strong because restricted to meso-level studies, actor
network theory claims to have done away with the need to consider the divide between
macro and micro-social considerations (Law, 1992, p. 7). Here, the authors are not arguing
for the superiority of actor network theory over structuration theory. They are simply
stating that Stones (2005) framework is a robust and credible theory for interpretative
research that has particular potential for case studies in organisation, accounting and
management studies. Jones and Dugdales (2002) paper applying actor network theory
and Giddens later theories on modernity to the ABC story could have been written using
strong structuration theory. It would not necessarily have been a better or a worse paper
but it would have been a different one, because the diagnosis of structure and the
emphasis on agents conduct and context in strong structuration theory would have
produced a different account of the emergence of ABC. As Stones (2005, p. 7) states:
[The] networks of relevant relationships can be researched and investigated more or less
conventionally, or more or less on the basis of the structural-hermeneutic diagnostics at the
heart of structuration.

This notion of position-practices was very relevant in the farm accounting case study
discussed below, where there are obvious clusters of actors within and without the
organization field, and where the relations between them (and the ghosts of past and
present actors) impact on outcomes. In the other study, the conceptualization of
external structures and resistance in strong structuration theory had the potential to
articulate the tensions and outcomes observed in the course of the study. Stones (2005,
p. 75) conceptualizes the duality of structure as four analytically, separate
components which he labels the quadripartite nature of structuration (Figure 1).
One aspect of Stones (2005) strong structuration theory that comes as a surprise to a
number of readers is the apparent disappearance of the three modalities of structure
identified by Giddens (1984, p. 29), namely signification, legitimation and domination.
These are downplayed in Stones work, and more emphasis is given to the
methodological bracketing of institutional analysis and the analysis of strategic
conduct in Giddens theory (Giddens, 1984, p. 289; Stones, 1996, 2005; Scapens and
Macintosh, 1996). Stones (1996, 2005) re-terms these as agents context and agents
context analysis, and proposes a quadripartite framework of structure in place of the
more recognised S-L-D (tripartite) framework. In essence, an analysis of the conduct
and context of different clusters of actors is one of the schemes of interpretation,
norms and allocation of resources/power that Giddens identifies but Stones broader
approach allows for a less restricted form of verstehen than the original.
These four components are external structures as conditions of action, internal
structures (i.e. within the agent), active agency and outcomes (Stones, 2005, pp. 84-5).
The researcher must carefully delimit the action-horizons of the agents in situ in order to

Strong
structuration
theory
213

QROM
2,3

214

Figure 1.
The quadripartite nature
of structuration

Agent

(1)
External
Structures

(2)
Internal Structures

(a)
ConjunctuallySpecific
knowledge of
external
structures

(3)
Active
Agency/
Agents
practices

(4)
Outcomes

(b)
General
dispositions
or habitus

Source: Stones (2005, p.85)

establish what they and/or the agents regard as the line between external and internal
structures (Stones, 2005, p. 84) for the context studied. Position-practices within the
external, autonomous structures can be considered in abstract or substantively.
External structures constitute acknowledged and unacknowledged (by the agent in
focus) conditions of action and may be the basis for unintended consequences of
action (Stones, 2005, p. 109); the conditions may constrain or enable action by the
agent in focus (Stones, 2005). Where the external structures are completely autonomous
of the agent, affecting social conditions regardless of the agents own wishes (housing
markets for example), then actions by the external agents may influence the actions of
the agent in focus, but these will be independent causal influences (Stones, 2005, p. 111).
Stones distinguishes these occurrences from those where the agent in focus has the
physical capacity to resist the external influence but feels that they do not have the
ability to resist; these he terms as irresistible external influences (Stones, 2005, p. 112).
The latter was of some importance to the study on IT adoption discussed later in this
paper, because whether the accountants in the organisation in focus felt that they have
the ability to do otherwise than as the EU body wants, and whether in the long-term
they can resist the external influences on action from this external structure, was at the
heart of the events described in the case study.
Internal structures in this quadripartite scheme are divided analytically into two
components (Stones, 2005, p. 85). The first of these is termed conjecturally specific
internal structures and the second general-disposition structures or habitus (after
Bourdieu, though the previous term is preferred to distance the theory here from too
close an association with practical action) (Stones, 2005, p. 87). Stones (2005, p. 88)
envisages the general-dispositional as something the agent draws on without thinking
and so encompasses:
. . . transposable skills and dispositions, including generalized world-views and cultural
schemas, classifications, typifications of things, peoples and networks, principles of action,
typified recipes of action, deep binary frameworks of signification, associative chains and
connotations of discourse, habits of speech and gesture, and methodologies for adapting this
range of particular practices in particular locations in time and space.

The conjecturally-specific relates to the role or position occupied by an agent or cluster

of agents (Stones, 2005, p. 89). The virtual structures of legitimation/norms and
domination/power come into play here and, in this study, would cover the position and
practices of accountants, IT specialists and managers within the industrial
modernization centre (IMC), and the rules and routines, the specific contexts of
action that happen within the time and place in which they are situated (Stones, 2005,
p. 90). Conjecturally-specific knowledge is gained over time that is, knowledge of
interpretative schemes, power capacities, and normative expectations and principles of
the agents within context (Stones, 2005, p. 91). Such knowledge is related outwards,
towards external structures (Stones, 2005, p. 90) and their overall hermeneutic
structures (Stones, 2005, p. 91).
When an agent in focus acts and this is the third component of active agency in
the quadripartite paradigm it is the active, dynamic moment of structuration
(Stones, 2005, p. 86). The outcomes the fourth component are the result of active
agency: structures may be changed or preserved, consequences may be intended or
unintended, and the agent may be facilitated or frustrated (Stones, 2005, p. 85).
The analytical framework
The quadripartite nature of structuration then becomes a framework for analysis
of empirical material. The starting point, Stones (2005, p. 117) suggests, has to be the
internal structures based on the agents in focus; the conjecturally-specific and/or the
general-dispositional. For example, the researcher could first identify
the general-dispositional frames of meaning for the agent in focus. Then, the
conjecturally-specific interpretative schemes, norms and allocation of resources of the
agents in focus would be analyzed (Stones, 2005, p. 123). This would extend to include their
perceptions of the external terrain and their networked others: the practices observable
by each positional group and the relationships between them would lead to the analysis of
the agent in focus as being more or less powerful, knowledgeable, critically reflective
(Stones, 2005, p. 78), and identify the possibilities and constraints facing them.
The next step would be to identify the relevant external structures, and the
authority and material resources at their disposal. Whether or not these structures are
modifiable to a greater or lesser extent by the agents in focus, will indicate whether or
not the causal influence of the external on the internal structures is independent or
irresistible (Stones, 2005, p. 78). The extent to which there might exist external
structure resistance to an agents project (as in the case of the EU and the organisation
adopting IT systems sponsored by the EU below) could include the number of agents
involved in the external structures, the types of power available to them and the
intensity of active resistance to the project (Stones, 2005, p. 80).
Finally, the researcher should examine the outcomes and analyze the extent to
which these were intended or unintended, and whether these are more or less important
to specified agents (Stones, 2005, pp. 78-80); the extent to which structures (external
and internal) have been modified and the extent to which rules and routines have
endured.
The role of the researcher and the means of research
In practice, the researcher may employ a number of data collection techniques in the
study. Giddens (1984) in The Constitution of Society illustrated his work with studies

Strong
structuration
theory
215

QROM
2,3

216

drawn both from ethnography, survey and interviews. Stones (2005) uses studies
drawn from ethnography and historical research, as well as a re-interpretation of
Ibsens The Doll House. As in any good sociological research, triangulation of sources
provides reassurance and credibility (Yin, 2000, pp. 91-3) and furthermore, the theory
itself provides one point of triangulation (Stones, 1996, pp. 77-8). The use of the
framework neither prescribes nor rejects the use of any particular method of data
collection.
What Stones (2005, p. 81) does envisage though is that the researcher is carrying out
an investigation. A structuration study is one that engages at least at a minimal level,
with a combination of hermeneutics and structural diagnostics (p. 133). Such a study
also recognises that:
. . . it will simply not be possible to investigate [authors italics] the interplay of structure and
agency in any meaningful sense without a sufficiently discriminating, austerely delimiting,
focus of attention on a restricted number of germane points on the historical and geographical
landscape (p. 82).

This is in accord with Giddens (1989, p. 300) reflections on a sensitising broad theory:
. . . every social system, no matter how small or ephemeral, or large-scale and permanent,
gains its systematic qualities only through regularities of social reproduction. The ways in
which such regularities which consist of social practices are organized in and through the
behavior of contextually located actors have to be subjected to empirical investigation. Modes
of institutional articulation across time and space are building blocks of time-space
distanciation.

Parker (2006) despite his overall misgivings, does acknowledge that the framework
offered forces the researcher to thoroughly engage with the who did what, where,
when, how and why of the study. This is research as drilling down, as detective work,
as systems auditing, as psychotherapy: thorough investigation carried out with a
healthy dose of professional scepticism. It is the researcher as the highly sensitised,
methodical, professional asking questions until all angles are covered and an intuitive
feel for the patterns and subtle abnormalities involved has been achieved.
It is not possible to give precise guidelines on how an analysis of agents schemes
can be undertaken or a diagnosis of structural techniques. This is a situation where the
professional researcher must call on the concepts of the general-dispositional and the
conjecturally-specific to frame questions that will elicit from the subjects, from
documentation and from observations their knowledge of themselves, their context
and their boundaries. It is building up a very visual, spatial image of the networks and
patterns of action involved and separating the intended consequences from the
unintended. The epistemological justification for our interpretation must be judged in
much the same way as in other areas of critical theory. The aim is not verification or
verisimilitude (Putnam et al., 1993, p. 234). Whether the final case study is a
convincing account, one that will persuade the readers that his or her portrayal is a
good one as is contended in that paper by ethnographists, or whether it is an account
that produces social transformation through developing insights that allow actors to
cope with distorted communication and to participate openly in constructing new
meanings as the critical theorists contend or whether the researcher manages to make
the familiar exotic and problematic (Alvesson and Deetz, 2000, p. 167) or simply
unearths patterns and maps that were previously unconsidered, then there is

justification for the approach. There is a contribution to knowledge. The metaphor of

the investigator may suggest that a solution or explanation is found: the plausibility of
the case interpretation may in part be decided by the professionalism, thoroughness
and detachment of the investigator but it does not have to be a right and final solution.
That is for the readers (the jury to stretch the metaphor), themselves knowledgeable
actors, to exercise their own judgement, as should be the situation with any case study.
Stones framework offers significant guidance for the researcher using structuration
theory, whilst retaining the spirit of Giddens original theory, where the study of the
day-to-day immediately means opening out across time and space and accepting the
necessity of a historical or developmental perspective and a sensitivity to variations in
location (Giddens, 1989, p. 298)
Discussion
Stones (1996, p. 117, 2005, pp. 34-40), unlike Parker (2000, p. 9) who regards the time for
structuration theory as finished, sees the theory as the basis for lively research which
has barely been exploited as yet. Despite the number of commentators (Baumann,
Thrift, Gregson) who see Giddens as a meta-theorist (Stones, 1996, pp. 115-17) whose
innovations are most relevant to the large-scale, long-term processes of society, Stones
(1996, 2005), Thrift (1996) and others claim that structuration theory can be relevant to
more small-scale, short-term empirical work, including the design of such studies and
his approach to this has been presented above. In order to commence an evaluation of
the contribution that this conception of strong structuration theory could make to
future case study work, this discussion first reflects on two attempts to apply the
framework to empirical data and then on two current papers on the application of
social theory in qualitative research.
Study one
A study on the institutionalisation of farm management accounting practices in the UK
in the postwar period (Jack, 2004) was initially approached using fusions of
institutional theories and structuration based on Barley and Tolbert (1997) and Burns
and Scapens (2000). The data collected revealed that different clusters of actors
were acting in different ways that together contributed to the inertial state of the
institution at the time of study and the theoretical frameworks were inadequate to
explain the findings of the study. An early draft of Stones (2005) chapter on Ontology
being made available, the researcher then re-cast the study in terms of strong
structuration theory ontology and also drew on Stones (1996, p. 77) earlier work,
Sociological Reasoning, particularly the floater metaphor which:
Seeks to capture the way in which a certain type of study acquires a broader and longer
perspective by means of floating over the surface of events, as if in a hot air balloon, from
which ones eye is extensive but lacking in detail.

In brief, the question of why certain accounting practices have persisted over a 50-year
time span and a wide space of action as in the case of the use of the agricultural gross
margin in UK agriculture since the 1960s involved a taking a broad view over that
time-space and the clusters of actors involved. The researcher needed to float over the
structures and over the longue duree of their history. Yet the research also needed to be
hermeneutically informed: why had the actors chosen to reproduce the institution over

Strong
structuration
theory
217

QROM
2,3

218

the years in this form? As noted above, structuration studies are characterised by a
concern for both hermeneutics and structural diagnostics (Stones, 2005, p. 81).
However, it was clear that in a farming context, accounting practices are not
necessarily day-to-day actions or even thought of from one day to the next by some
actors. A high level of contextualization and concentration on a very few actors would
not expose why the institution persists over such a wide space and time in such a
situation. A number of actors from each identified group (farmers, government, and
advisors), giving overviews of their own and the industrys practices a mid-level
contextualization were required.
The empirical findings were presented as two investigations into two episodes in
the lifecycle of the agricultural gross margin. The first investigation was an historical
review of contemporaneous literature and documentation covering the episodes of
initiation and implementation c.1960 and the episodes of institutionalization, which
was completed c.1972 (when Britain joined the European Economic Community and
the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) regime). The second investigation covered the
present day, which could be characterised as a period of apparent inertia and is an
episode where the institution could be on the verge of change arising from external
pressures. Thus, the two episodes of institutionalisation and of current
position-practices which may or may not be on the verge of change were
covered. This follows Stones (2005, p. 82) advice that:
. . . one could imagine focusing in detail on two events separated by: (i) a long period of time;
or (ii) large tracts of space, that can be demonstrated to have a relation to one to the other
which is identifiably a relation of structuration.

This chimes with one of Giddens (1984, p. 244) key concepts that all social life is
episodic. He says that:
. . . in referring to the type of social change involved in an episode I mean to indicate both how
intensive and how extensive it is . . . how profoundly a series of changes disrupts or reshapes
an existing alignment of institutions and how wide-ranging such changes are (p. 246).

By then exploring more deeply the aspects of signification, legitimation and dominance
within the institution and its clusters of actors the author was able to successfully
achieve a rich analysis of the nature of the accounting practice ( Jack, 2005).
Study two
The second case study is about the experience of introducing an ERP system into the
IMC, the executive body of the Industrial Modernization Programme (IMP) jointly
funded by the EU and the Government of Egypt (Kholeif, 2005). This study, taken from
the viewpoint of the agents in focus (the accountants in the Finance Department),
covers a short time-span, but within that short time (2001-2005) presents a failed
attempt to establish organizational structures. The Finance Department had a
dominant role in the running of the organization, but this was insufficient either to
resist the external pressures placed by the governments of the EU and Egypt or the
internal pressure exerted by the component managers. The ERP system, chosen as the
means of interpreting the IMCs role in the IMP, failed to gain legitimacy with either
cluster of agents, and the outcomes were a system that suited the way the component
managers wished to work and the imposition of the intranet-based system created by
those put in place by the EU Commissioners. The Finance Department contained

agents more knowledgeable about the possibilities and functions of an ERP system,
but less knowledgeable about the overall aims and ambitions of the
Euro-Mediterranean process. The EU, although an external agent, had greater
legitimacy through its broader programmes and established structures, and through
the resources in terms of money and established procedures than the Finance
Department. The component managers had greater legitimacy in their
position-practices, as they were more directly carrying out the work of the IMC with
businesses; thus they were able to more clearly define their role as being separate from
that of the Finance Department and not integrated with them, and so simplified the
practices of the Finance Department to being that of information provider.
Thus, we have a clear outline of what Stones (2005, p. 75) terms the quadripartite
nature of structuration. The external agents (the EU, Egyptian Government and
vendor) provided the conditions of action. The agents in focus were attempting to
create organizational structures, rules and routines to govern action, but were in turn
acting in accordance with general dispositions (as accountants and former corporate
employees) and performing conjecturally specific actions (setting up an ERP system)
that reproduced familiar structures from their past. The outcomes were unintended,
but arose from the resistance generated between the structures and actions envisaged
by the external agents and between internal agents influenced separately by external
agents and the agents in focus.
The data collection for this study was carried out before the publication of Stones
book in 2005. However, the researchers were informed by, and intended to use,
structuration theory and institutional theories in their interpretation. Strong
structuration theory gave an enhanced analysis of the actions and structures
observed, by allowing the analysis to stretch into the conditions of action set by the
external agents to become a more substantial element of the analysis. However, had
Stones (2005, p. 75) framework been used from the start of the project, then it would
indeed have guided the questions and framework of the research, sensitizing the
researchers to ask further questions concerning the role of the EU and, perhaps,
directing the research to include more interviews with the external agents themselves.
The sliding scale image would guide the researchers to position the research to
severely delimit it (Stones, 2005, p. 78) and thus sharpen the analysis obtained.
Had the EU Commission (in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership) been chosen as
the agent in focus, then we would have moved up the sliding scale and the study would
have been more of a floating study (Stones, 1996, p. 77) and less deeply
contextualized. The relationship between the EU and Egypt stretches over a much
longer timescale than the existence of the IMC, and is bound with general policies of
democratization, trade agreements and modernization. We would have touched
down (Stones, 1996, p. 77-8) in the IMP and seen just one example of what Lister (1997,
p. 70) called the awkward development of the EUs Mediterranean policy and what
Youngs (2002, p. 54) claims is the EUs lack of effort to work out a strategy to
encourage a type and form of economic engagement conducive to prompting political
change the underpinning reason behind EU investment in the south Mediterranean
region. Were the researchers to go further up the sliding scale again, into the realm of
ontology-in-general, then this same study could be viewed from above as part of the
working out of ideologies of democratization and modernization.

Strong
structuration
theory
219

QROM
2,3

220

In both studies, the use of strong structuration theory ideas enhanced the analysis of
the data available but by themselves they are not sufficient to fully evaluate the
framework and its potential. In order to fully evaluate the strengths and the
weaknesses, research should be carried out that is designed as a structuration study
from the outset following the principles in the offered framework: the potential of this
method is that it both expands the sensitivities of the researcher to the actors and
structures under observation whilst imposing a level of discipline on the qualitative
researcher.
In the context of current papers
There are two recent papers which indirectly offer support for the use of strong
structuration theory in qualitative case study research. In the first of these, Ahrens and
Chapman (2006, p. 837) are concerned with the process of research in which:
. . . to generate findings that are of interest to the wider management accounting research
community, the qualitative field researcher must be able to continuously make linkages
between theory and findings from the field in order to evaluate the potential interest of the
research as it unfolds. This ongoing engaging of research questions, theory, and data has
important implications for the ways in which qualitative field researchers can define the field
and interpret its activities.

They observe that qualitative field study is not simply empirical but a profoundly
theoretical activity where the task for the researcher and writer is to express the field
as social and not simply to clarify it (p. 819). Researchers should avoid a banal
application of theory to findings, implying relevance but instead use the findings to
draw out new theoretical insight into management practices (accounting in this
instance). Their paper is salutary reading for the qualitative researcher.
Stones (2005) framework for substantive research that is theoretically informed is
in sympathy with the views of Ahrens and Chapman (2006). What is being offered in
the strong structuration framework is an approach (not a prescription) for carrying out
field work that envelopes data, theory and research problems. The conflation of
ontology and method is avoided (Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, p. 822), as Stones
framework is developed from strongly argued ontological grounds and the insistence
on combining hermeneutics and structural diagnosis (Stones, 2005, p. 81). Although
only one theory is applied, rather than multiple theories as Ahrens and Chapman prefer
to see ( p. 823), that theory is complex and many layered. Domains must be strictly
delineated (Stones, 2005, p. 82; Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, p. 827). Thus, strong
structuration theory appears to offer an approach to field studies that is both
disciplined and non-trivial, and thus in tune with best practice as set out in Ahrens and
Chapmans paper.
The second paper, by Pozzebon and Pinsonneault (2005) is entitled Challenges in
conducting empirical work using structuration theory: learning from IT research is
interesting because it broadly comes to the same conclusions as Stones (2005). They
suggest concrete directions for improving empirical research using structuration theory.
Firstly, researchers should hone in on three sensitising devices: duality of structure,
time/space and actors knowledgeability. Secondly, employing both narrative and
temporal bracketing either fine-grained or broad-grained is similar to the ideas of levels
of contextuality employed by Stones (1996). They observe (p. 1369) that:

The use of ST has helped IT researchers to understand better how technologies provide
meaning, are used to exercise power and legitimize certain outcomes to the detriment of
others, and how people produce or reproduce or enact organizational practices by using
certain technological properties and not others.

These findings, which are closely aligned to the approach taken by Stone, support the
potential relevance of strong structuration theory in organisation, management and
accounting studies.
However, the paper by Pozzebon and Pinsonneault (2005) also indicates a trend in
recent structuration studies in management and accounting. Pozzobon (2004) in his
review of structuration theory in the management literature concludes that the theory
has often been appropriated by researchers in strategy not as the primary theoretical
foundation but as a broad framework or envelope, as a general premise incorporated
into existing approaches or as an integrative theoretical tool. He also notices that there
is a greater concentration of papers c.2000 than earlier, suggesting an increasing
adoption of Giddens ideas: what is noticeable is that the majority of these papers draw
on earlier organisational writers and the Giddens earlier works as their primary
sources. Very few, if any, draw on criticism or thinking from sociology in the last
decade. The latest sociological work cited by Pozzebon and Pinsonneault (2005) is
Cohen (1989). Similarly, in accounting research using structuration theory, no papers
with the exception of Scapens and Macintosh (1996) touch on the extensive critical
work on Giddens since 1984, even where such works as Bryant and Jary (1996) are
cited. Very few in the accounting field draw on his later work on modernity (with
the exception of Jones and Dugdale, 2002; Seal, 2003; Seal et al., 2004). The primary
source for accounting researchers is Roberts and Scapens (1985) paper. Therefore, the
methodological developments of Stones, Cohen, Thrift and others and a number of
critical debates have been bypassed: one contribution of this paper is to draw recent
sociological research into the organisational domain.
Concluding comments
The use of structuration theory in case studies by organisation, management and
accounting researchers is relatively well established, but in order to develop
researchers in these fields need to remain aware of the growing body of work by
sociologists in what might be called the school of structuration theorists (Stones, 1998,
p. 11). The debates around duality, dualism or the non-necessity of either are still
ongoing, and the arguments that Giddens theory is too abstract and underdeveloped
for use in empirical study has led a number of social theorists to develop and
strengthen the theory. The most significant recent contribution to this ongoing
development is Stones (2005) book, Structuration Theory, in which he argues for a
reinforced ontology that enables substantive empirical social studies to be designed
and carried out being informed throughout by the theory. The book has been
recognised as being of considerable use to future researchers (Edwards, 2006; Parker,
2006).
The use of structuration theory in accounting, organisation and management
studies has been largely as an interpretative tool, often applied at some point mid-way
or towards the end of a study. Here, it has been argued that Stones (2005) framework
could enhance case study work in these fields by introducing both a design stage to
those studies that is specifically structurationist and impose a discipline on the

Strong
structuration
theory
221

QROM
2,3

222

researcher, to ask more penetrating questions of their sources and themselves that will
elicit responses about internal and external agents and structures, context and
perceptions of conduct. A structuration study as Stones (2005, p. 133) says, is one that
encompasses both hermeneutics and diagnosis of structure.
The use of strong structuration theory though is more than just a promotion of good
research practice based on a well-argued ontology and epistemological practice.
Being relatively untried, using strong structuration with the case study method also
allows researchers to experiment with the theory, to test it and in so doing, to
contribute to the ongoing debate, to develop theory themselves. Ahrens and Chapman
(2006) have argued that researchers should regard qualitative field study as a
profoundly theoretical activity and the response here is that the strong structuration
theory framework fully embraces that idea. The contribution of this paper is to argue
that the use of Stones (2005) framework is particularly suited to case study research
and to the development of the practice of developing case studies in accounting,
organisation and management that also contribute back into social theory. The
position of the researcher is presented as analogous to that of an investigator,
elucidating the case through evidence, theory, experience and intuition.
Strong structuration theory may address a significant number of the problems
perceived to be associated with Giddens structuration theory but it does not solve the
problematic of duality against dualism, although it does go some way to lessening
the gap between them. Just as in mathematics, however, the acceptance or refusal of
one axiom can lead to the construction of a new mathematical system, so if the
researcher is prepared to go along with the duality of structure, the results may be
surprising and insightful. Social theory in accounting, organisational and management
studies should be respected but is also there to be played with and investigated and
made part of what if trains of thought in the mind, based on the findings of empirical
research. Yes, this is a new framework which needs to be evaluated but organisational,
management and accounting research is ideally suited for this task: by their nature,
organisations are placed in the meso-level subject to the pressures of external
institutional and societal actors and structures and vulnerable to the actions of its
actors who might at any point choose to do otherwise.
Notes
1. Baxter and Chua (2003) are looking only at papers published in Accounting, Organisations
and Society, although this does contain most of the significant accounting papers on the
subject. There has been a growing number of case studies since 2000 (Conrad, 2005; Caglio,
2003) that use structuration theory but these are almost exclusively based on the earlier
seminal papers by Roberts and Scapens (1985) and MacIntosh and Scapens (1990).
Developments in management studies have been reviewed by Pozzobon (2004).
2. The critics of Giddens . . . hold that to explain the structuration of social structures by
recognising both the contributions of objective processes and human powers of agency does
not necessitate abandoning the dualism of structure (object) and (agency). Dualism asserts
the non-identity of the two, whereas Giddens asserts their identity (Parker, 2000, p. 9). To
adopt Giddenss theory, one must subscribe to this concept of the duality of structure, that
structures are expressions of action and that there is always an agent involved in the
reconstitution or reproduction of structures (Giddens and Pierson, 1998, p. 78). For Giddens it
then follows that institutions are structures that are chronically reproduced by
knowledgeable actors over time and space.

3. Cohen (1989, p. 210) sets out the minimum definition of institutionalised position-practices as
being an observable positional identity with associated prerogatives and obligations;
clusters of such practices; other interrelated incumbents of position-practices; reciprocities
between incumbents of clusters of position-practices.

Strong
structuration
theory

References
Ahrens, T. and Chapman, C. (2006), Doing qualitative field research in management accounting:
positioning data to contribute to theory, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 31
No. 8, pp. 819-41.
Alvesson, M. and Deetz, S. (2000), Doing Critical Management Research, Sage, London.
Barley, S.R. and Tolbert, P.S. (1997), Institutionalization and structuration: studying the links
between action and institution, Organization Studies, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 93-117.
Baxter, J.J. and Chua, W.F. (2003), Alternative management accounting research whence and
whither, Accounting, Organisations and Society, Vol. 28 Nos 2/3, pp. 97-126.
Bhaskar, R. (1979), The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary
Human Sciences, Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, NJ.
Bryant, C. and Jary, D. (1996), Anthony Giddens: Critical Assessments, Routledge, London.
Burns, J. and Scapens, R.W. (2000), Conceptualizing management accounting change:
an institutional framework, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 11, pp. 3-25.
Caglio, A. (2003), Enterprise resource planning systems and accountants: towards
hybridisation?, European Accounting Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 123-53.
Cohen, I.J. (1989), Structuration Theory: Anthony Giddens and the Structuration of Social Life,
Macmillan, London.
Conrad, L. (2005), A structuration analysis of accounting systems and systems of accountability
in the privatised gas industry, Critical Perspectives in Accounting, Vol. 16, pp. 1-26.
Edwards, T. (2006), Developments toward the operationalization of structuration,
Organization, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 911-3.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Giddens, A. (1989), A reply to my critics, in Held, D. and Thompson, J.B. (Eds), Social Theory of
Modern Societies: Anthony Giddens and his Critics, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Giddens, A. and Pierson, C. (1998), Conversations with Anthony Giddens: Making Sense of
Modernity, Blackwell, Oxford.
Jack, L. (2004), The persistence of post war accounting practices in UK agriculture,
unpublished thesis, University of Essex, Colchester.
Jack, L. (2005), Stocks of knowledge, simplification and unintended consequences:
the persistence of post-war accounting practices in UK agriculture, Management
Accounting Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 59-79.
Jones, T.C. and Dugdale, D. (2002), The ABC bandwagon and the juggernaut of modernity,
Accounting, Organisations and Society, Vol. 27, pp. 121-63.
Kholeif, A. (2005), Enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementation and management
accounting change in a transitional country: an interpretive case study from Egypt,
unpublished PhD thesis, the University of Essex, Colchester.

223

QROM
2,3

224

Law, J. (1992), Notes on the theory of the actor network: ordering, strategy and heterogeneity,
published by the Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University, Lancaster,
available at: www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Law-Notes-on-ANT.pdf (accessed
19 February 2007).
Lee, A.S. (1989), Case studies as natural experiments, Human Relations, Vol. 42 No. 2,
pp. 117-37.
Lister, M. (1997), The European Union and the South: Relations with Developing Countries,
Routledge, London.
MacIntosh, N.B. and Scapens, R.W. (1990), Structuration theory in management accounting,
Accounting, Organizations and Society., Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 455-77.
Orlowski, W.J. (1991), The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology
n organizations, Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 398-429.
Park, P. (2001), Knowledge and participatory research, in Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (Eds),
Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, Sage, London.
Parker, J. (2000), Structuration, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Parker, J. (2006), Structurations future? From All and Everywhere to Who Did What, Where,
When, How and Why?, Journal of Critical Realism, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 122-38.
Pozzobon, M. (2004), The influence of a structurationist view on strategic management
research, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 247-72.
Pozzebon, M. and Pinsonneault, A. (2005), Challenges in conducting empirical work: using
structuration theory: learning from it research, Organization Studies, Vol. 26 No. 9,
pp. 1353-76.
Putnam, L., Brantz, C., Deetz, S., Mumby, D. and Van Maanen, J. (1993), Ethnography versus
critical theory, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 221-35.
Reed, M.I. (1997), In praise of duality and dualism: rethinking agency and structure in
organizational analysis, Organization Studies, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 21-42.
Roberts, J. and Scapens, R. (1985), Accounting systems and systems of accounting:
understanding accounting practices in their in their organisational contexts,
Accounting, Organisations and Society, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 443-56.
Scapens, R.W. and Macintosh, N.B. (1996), Response to Bolands interpretative act, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 21 Nos 7/8, pp. 675-90.
Seal, W. (2003), Modernity, modernization and the deinstitutionalization of incremental
budgeting in local government, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 93-116.
Seal, W., Berry, A. and Cullen, J. (2004), Disembedding the supply chain: institutionalized
reflexivity and inter-firm accounting, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 73-92.
Steen, J., Coopmans, C. and Whyte, J. (2006), Structure and agency? Actor-network theory and
strategic organization, Strategic Organization, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 303-12.
Stones, R. (1996), Sociological Reasoning: Towards a Past-Modern Sociology, Macmillan, London.
Stones, R. (Ed.) (1998), Key Sociological Thinkers, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Stones, R. (2001), Refusing the realism-structuration divide, European Journal of Social Theory,
Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 177-97.
Stones, R. (2005), Structuration Theory, Palgrave, London.
Thrift, N. (1985), Bear and mouse or bear and tree? Anthony Giddens reconstitution of social
theory, Sociology, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 609-23.

Thrift, N. (1996), Spatial Formations: Theory, Culture and Social Spaces, Sage, London.
Whittington, R. (1992), Putting Giddens into action: social systems and management agency,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 29, p. 6.
Yin, R.K. (1981), The case study crisis: some answers, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 58-65.
Yin, R.K. (2000), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, London.
Youngs, R. (2002), The European Union and democracy promotion in the Mediterranean: a new
or disingenuous strategy?, Democratization, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 40-62.
Corresponding author
Lisa Jack can be contacted at: ljackb@essex.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Strong
structuration
theory
225

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5648.htm

QROM
2,3

Case study research and network

theory: birds of a feather
Evert Gummesson

226

Stockholm University School of Business, Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to advocate that case study research needs to renew itself and
employ its full potential as an innovative theory-generating methodology in management disciplines;
and to propose that a viable strategy for such renewal is to exploit the power of case study research
and network theory as supplementary methodologies.
Design/methodology/approach The paper is a reflective and synthesising comparative study.
Findings If one steps down from the tip of the iceberg and inspects the underwater properties of
case study research and network theory a common core is found: the recognition of complexity. The
methodologies supplement each other, case study research primarily using verbal language and
qualitative data, while network theory uses a nodes-and-links language that opens up for verbal,
graphic and mathematical treatment. Case study research is primarily associated with qualitative
research in social sciences and network theory with quantitative research in both social and natural
sciences. By abolishing the unfortunate categories of qualitative/quantitative and natural
sciences/social sciences that have been set against each other, and letting them join forces for a
common goal to learn about life people open up for methodological creativity.
Originality/value By comparing case study research with network theory on a fundamental level,
the paper offers a novel perspective on research. It is a contribution to an overriding desire to improve
the understanding of management and society.
Keywords Innovation, Quality, Case studies, Complexity theory, Research methods
Paper type Research paper

Qualitative Research in Organizations

and Management: An International
Journal
Vol. 2 No. 3, 2007
pp. 226-248
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1746-5648
DOI 10.1108/17465640710835373

Introduction
After long experience with case study research, I have begun to feel increasingly
uncomfortable. The feeling is that case study research does not develop as a research
methodology. Over several decades, I have also devoted my research to relational
aspects of marketing. This has progressively led up to network theory and its
application to marketing. I have realized that it is all about life. I am not a student of
marketing, I am a student of life through marketing. Embracing a broad qualitative
and humanities-oriented world-view, I believe you can study life through anything; life
exists in each cell, each galaxy, each event and each discipline, irrespective of how
mundane or grand it may appear. I discovered that network theory and case study
research are birds of a feather. As such, they should flock together but so far they
do not.
The paper is an invitation to dialogue rather than an effort to tell the reader how
things are or should be. Put in internet lingo, there is an open-source code like the
Linux operative system which invited computer geeks to develop an initially crude
concept and has continued to do so since 1991; and the more recent Wikipedia,
presenting itself as the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Our increased
understanding of customer participation and customer-to-customer interaction (C2C),
the explosion of user-controlled web sites and communities and the idea about the

future internet as a platform for user participation (Web 2.0), and the current interest in
a new service-dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2004; Lusch and Vargo, 2006) support
the customers role as co-creators of our economies. The same role duality applies to
scholars as they swing between being producers of science and consumers of science.
Dialogical orientation (Ballantyne and Varey, 2006) should outrank the hard sell,
win-lose debates and defence of established but often outdated concepts, theories and
methods.
The term management will be used henceforth as the collective designation for
business administration (or increasingly just business) and public administration. It
includes a series of subdisciplines, among them organization, leadership, accounting,
finance and marketing.
In the centre of the paper is a treatise of the two methodologies case study research
and network theory. They have basic properties in common; above all they address
complexity. As case study research is known among qualitative researchers, only some
specific aspects, which I consider less known and in need of dialogue and rethinking,
are presented. In contrast, network theory is less practiced in management research,
particularly when you consider the contributions from natural sciences. The paper
presents links between case study research and network theory and offers an overview
of network properties. I do not as yet feel the time is ripe to offer a more structured
comparison but rather to draw the readers attention to an opportunity for exciting
developments in research methodology. The paper ends with conclusions and
recommendations.
A mainstream dividing line in research is whether one should test extant theory or
generate new theory. Let me initially establish my conviction that management is in
need of more innovative and daring research, quantum leaps and paradigm shifts. As
social scientists look up to the scientific approaches in physics, it may be appropriate to
quote Einstein: To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from
a new angle, requires imagination and marks real advances in science. This is a
broader, overriding alternative to the current piecemeal contributions where tiny
details and simplistic causal relationships between two or a few variables are studied
in a contextual vacuum, deprived of real life complexity and dynamics. The current
research tradition is more rituals-oriented in an effort to stand out as scientific, and it is
less result-oriented. This is unnecessary as the demarcation line between theory testing
and theory generation is artificial and superfluous. By emphasising innovation and
continuous improvements, theory-in-use will be constantly exposed to comparison
with new theory. So, may the best one win and the loser withdraw with no
hard feelings.
The two methodologies could be combined, using network theory within case
studies as both a way to generate and structure data and as an analytical technique.
Case study research speaks a verbal language while network theory speaks a
nodes-and-links language and provides a foundation for graphical, mathematical and
computer processing without rejecting verbal language. Network theory offers
traditionally narrative case study the option to take a leap forward by introducing a
different type of data generation and processing. Those who master verbal language
and write well can offer both rigour and freedom in expression and interpretation. By
being different but with the same interest in complexity, cross-fertilization between the
two is possible.

Case study
research and
network theory
227

QROM
2,3

228

Case study research

Is the quality of case study research in management disciplines higher today than
20 years ago?
There is no straightforward answer to the question. An evaluation could include
three aspects. The first is whether case study methodology has improved, through
incremental polishing and/or quantum leaps. The second is whether researchers have
become more skilled in applying the methodology. Has education in case study
research improved? Have supervisors of term papers all the way to PhD theses become
better coaches? The third concerns examiners, reviewers of journal articles, and
members of promotion, grants and certification committees. Do they have adequate
knowledge of case study research and qualitative methods in general or are their minds
mainly formatted by a statistical paradigm?
Assessing these quality issues and possible changes requires specific study. Even
so, it will not be easy to come up with unambiguous conclusions. In an empirical study
of the status of qualitative research in the management field, Cassell et al. (2006) found
indications that qualitative research was often assessed by the wrong criteria
(inappropriate procedural correctness) and inconsistent use of criteria. On the training
side, they found a bias in favour of quantitative approaches. Other indicators of
inadequate knowledge and training are that Flybjerg (2006) finds it called for to
explain five misunderstandings about the basics of case study research; should not
these have reached the mainstream by now? Personally, I have found it necessary to
structure case study research in management into five foci, all elementary but not yet
well applied (Gummesson, 2007).
I consider cases central in management research. In my home country, Sweden
cases constitute the most important empirical base for masters and PhD theses at
business schools; in many other countries, they are the exception. Case study research
is criticized by quantitative researchers for being just conceptual, useful at an
exploratory stage but not for proving anything, lacking in rigour, and offering
journalism and anecdotal evidence with non-generalisable outcomes. Let us hope that
a falling number of researchers will remain mesmerized by the hubris of quantitative
researchers who take their superiority for granted, allowing little reflection but endless
fundamentalist rhetoric.
In the absence of further studies and more conclusive evidence, I will discuss some
of my favourite ideas related to the three aspects noted above, and based on several
decades of case study research experience. These ideas come under two headings:
complexity and quality/productivity.

Complexity
Business is in constant flux and it is only partially predictable. A research method
therefore must allow the study of change processes. Snapshot at one point of time
(statics) may be totally inadequate and a series of discrete snapshots (comparative
statics) may be more adequate but not enough to satisfy business reality. For an
extreme case that contains all the ingredients of a Shakespearean play, follow the
developments of the European aircraft manufacturer Airbus and the intricacies in
designing, financing, producing and marketing its new super-jumbo passenger jet and
its race with the market leader, the American Boeing. The drama is continually

reported in the business press. Even the brief media reports offer enough material to
create respect for the complexity that has to be tackled. Our methodology must be
responsive to complexity, or research in management will neither make a contribution
to theory, nor to practice. An example of such responsiveness is Bakir and Bakir (2006)
who apply grounded theory to the elusive concept of strategy. They do not buy the
conventional and rationalistic simplifications but dive right into the complexity of
strategy through multiparadigm inquiry.
Case study research tries to respond to complexity by providing rich and thick
descriptions in the sense suggested by Geertz (1973). But the genome of case study
research stretches beyond such descriptions. It allows the study of complexity, context,
ambiguity and chaos. It allows a holistic, systemic approach with an unlimited number
of variables and links. It allows an inductive approach without considering extant
theory, but can also be deductive or a combination of the two. It offers freedom in the
choice of data generation and analytical techniques with little regulation. It is
innovative, entrepreneurial and non-bureaucratic. It endorses the urgency of access to
reality and has validity and relevance in focus. Access may be denied for social,
physical, or resource reasons, but should not be impaired by the imposition of
approved but insensitive data collection and analysis techniques.
Complexity will be used as a term to represent all those factors, links and other
circumstances that make research difficult and uncertain. Although accepted in
natural sciences, the social sciences quantitative mainstream, including management
disciplines, feels uncomfortable with complexity.
Being complex means that multiple factors and relationships are interdependent.
Context therefore is a major dimension of complexity. With reference to quantum
theory, Zohar (1997, p. 46) points out that To be known, to be measured, to be used, a
quantum entity must always be seen within the larger context of its defining
relationships. Pick one or two factors from a context and insulate them and you
regress to the mechanical idea that if you study all the details you can screw them
together like they were parts of an engine and there is the whole! The
Humpty-Dumpty syndrome, derived from the old nursery rhyme in which Humpty
Dumpty fell off a shelf and went to pieces, shows in common-sense language that
specialization:
. . . resembles all the kings horses and all the kings men tackling the puzzle created by the
fragments of Humpty Dumptys broken body. . . Despite the fragmentation in professional
specialties, professionals and managers are expected to somehow put their and only their
pieces of Humpty Dumpty back together again. Further, they are to accomplish this task
without really understanding what Humpty Dumpty looked like in the first place, or what the
other professions can do to make him whole again (Waddock and Spangler, 2000, p. 211).

The fact that Humpty Dumpty was an egg and assuming that it was raw and not
hard-boiled, makes the dilemma even more obvious. How do you put a broken egg
together? It is an organic, live phenomenon whose elements mix and merge after a
crash and quickly degenerate much like an organization or a market.
We will now proceed to the assessment of quality and productivity of case study
research and how management research can leave behind routinely applied quality
criteria and learn from industry.

Case study
research and
network theory
229

QROM
2,3

230

Quality and productivity

It is often said in texts based on cases that the cases illustrate something. You can
probably find examples that seem to support any absurdity but such exampling is
not proof of anything (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). However, examples can facilitate the
understanding of theoretical constructs and complex argumentation by relating them
to everyday experiences and familiar metaphors and theory. For scholars, the task of
genuine case study research is the provision of empirical data for analyses and
conclusions; practitioners have to go further and make decisions, initiate action and
achieve results. It is correct, as is often pointed out, that one or a few cases cannot
answer the questions of how often, how much, and how many. But is it not better to
understand a phenomenon in depth than to know how often the not understood
phenomenon occurs?
Excellence in case study research requires skills to access data and to analyze and
interpret documents, interviews, observations and experiences. It requires that you are
critical to the data offered by your sources but constructively critical. A respondents
answers and comments are always slanted, unknowingly and without malice or
deliberately, and with various motives and power behind it. Increasingly which
should be obvious to those who are in accounting, corporate strategy or marketing, and
to economists and political scientists politicians, reporters, public relations people
and lobbyists manipulate our perception of what is going on or what happened.
Politicians are considered liars, it seems, by a majority of people; salespeople are
known to be overpromising; and accountants help cook the books. The phenomenon
is not new but today spinning of information has become a profession. Consultants
are hired to promote certain facts and suppress others and their only loyalty is to
those who pay their invoices. The distortion of fact can be skilfully disguised as
documentaries on television or scientific columns in journals. Truth in the classic
sense is for the weak and gullible. A majority of the professionals probably does not
even know what the truth is and if they are lying and distorting fact.
In the paper scripts I get for review the most common references on case study
research are Yins (1984) book, originally from 1984 and lightly revised for later
editions, and article from Eisenhardt (1989). Although these sources offer important
insights and guidance they seem all too often to be routinely applied as if they were
complete and forever valid. If nothing has happened with case study research since the
1980 s, we had better watch out. I also fear that not every author has read Yin and
Eisenhardt in depth but settled for them because of their ubiquity in reference lists;
they are a safe choice. Increasingly, reference lists become mere name-dropping that
bring referencing into a vicious circle: the more a reference is listed the more it is listed
whether it is the most suitable reference for a specific script or not. A new reference
by an unknown author in a second tier journal stands little chance. References become
a social rather than an intellectual dimension of the researchscape.
Objectivity could not do without subjectivity and intersubjectivity. The ultimate
decision to release a wine on the market is taken by a single person or a small group of
connoisseurs, each with a superior nose and tongue. They snuff and taste. No better
method has been found, which frustrates bureaucratic technology freaks: why cannot
we get a machine do it, an objective system with quantitative indicators? The
assessment of the quality of academic research is no more scientific than the
assessment of wine quality; it is also largely a nose-and-tongue exercise.

There is also talk about productivity of research but quality and productivity are
interrelated in a complex web. What would a working trade-off between quality and
productivity look like? There is no general answer, only specific, context-dependent
answers. To force pseudo-productivity, for example measuring how many articles
faculty wrote last year, is detrimental over the long-term. Currently, those who want to
pursue and maintain an academic career are pressed to publish at least two articles per
year in blind-reviewed international journals, preferably in top journals. In a
benevolent interpretation, the number is a productivity measure, and the peer review
and journal status are quality indicators. Turned into points, scales and rankings,
however, a deceptive security is reached; we bury our heads in the sand in the belief
that we become invisible.
The demands on the researchers can be viewed as efforts to keep quality and
productivity under political and bureaucratic rather than scholarly control. In
academe, certification bodies and promotion committees have established elaborate
systems of credits that include, for example, the ranking of the journal in which you
published, if you wrote it alone or with co-authors, if these co-authors come from the
same department and the same university as you or from elsewhere, and if your name
is listed first, second, etc. This system has given birth to large publishing houses
specialising in journals for academic promotion rather than journals for disseminating
scientific advancements. From a marketing perspective, publishers are right; they fill a
need in the market.
There are many catches here which would take separate articles to discuss. Let me
just mention one or two. It is recommended that everybody should publish in
international top journals. To become a top journal usually takes decades and the
international top journals in management disciplines are American. European
journals are scornfully referred to as second tier journals. New journals covering
innovative research and being entrepreneurial are looked down upon.
The whole situation is a paradox but driven with ferocious blindness. For example,
in marketing everybody wants to publish in the Journal of Marketing (JM). In
approximate terms JM receives 300 new scripts per year and 100 scripts that come
back after revision. It can publish 30, meaning that very few academics can get a script
accepted in JM, even in a lifetime. Further, there is a backlog of several years.
A rejection does not automatically mean bad quality; it is also a matter of what the
editor considers a good fit in accordance with JMs mission, and an appealing mix of
articles in a certain issue. Each script is reviewed by three reviewers which are at
least in theory blind or anonymous and the editor. There are certain criteria but all
these require a series of judgement calls from each individual judge, meaning that the
review process is guided by a mix of objective, intersubjective, subjective, quantitative
and qualitative criteria in unknown proportions and with unknown weights. The good
news is that the real bad scripts are weeded out but the bad news is that the real good
ones may be as well. Innovation, breaking with a reigning paradigm, which is a
necessity for quantum leaps in science, by definition does not comply with mainstream
criteria. At the same time, we cry for innovation. The risk is that we get
more-of-the-same mediocrity, albeit the mediocrity is of high standard.
Quantitative research is a priori defined as superior to qualitative research, a claim
which is on such divine level that no evidence is necessary; it is a God-given fact.
A wide-spread rumour claims that you must include a quantitative part to get articles

Case study
research and
network theory
231

QROM
2,3

232

published and that one or a few cases are not enough. This is only partially true and
my prediction is that it is changing in favour of cases. The best thing with the plethora
of journals and conferences is that they open up an unregulated market with numerous,
decentralized decision-makers guided by different paradigms. People can still take
initiatives without being dependent on established, power-playing professors and
university bureaucrats, and innovation and entrepreneurship is given a chance.
Sometimes an abundance of data that has required numerous interviews, audio
recordings and transcripts during a lengthy period of time, is mistaken for high
quality. In a discussion with Barney Glaser, co-creator of grounded theory, he stated
that a research project should not take too long six months at the most. The quality
will not forever go up, but after a while starts to decline and so will productivity. Rich
descriptions can become filthy rich; thick ones can become overweight.
Academe can learn from business and government organizations where quality
management under different labels, including productivity and financial outcomes, is a
big issue. Belatedly, in the 1980s, it was realized in the Western World that quality and
productivity cannot be upheld without the concerted effort of every little detail in an
organization, its suppliers, distribution network, leadership, human resource
management, and so on. Among the quality systems are Lean Production,
Six Sigma, ISO, and the quality awards such as the European Quality Award and
the US Baldrige Award. They provide extensive lists of criteria, questions and
comments 40-50 pages which have to be considered by those who seek to improve
and maintain quality. They increasingly stress the outcome while initially the stress
was on following procedures and installing enablers. Compared to this variety and
richness, mainstream scientific quality criteria stand out as poor.
As uncovered in the study by Cassell et al. (2006), it is not unusual that ignorant
reviewers of case study research lean on criteria from statistics and hypotheses testing
in the conviction that these represent general criteria for scientific evaluation. Three
common quality criteria in science are validity, generalisability and reliability or some
variation of these. Validity in its generic sense is of cardinal importance in case study
research. Have the researchers been able to capture the phenomenon they are chasing
or have they studied something else? Generalisability is closely related to validity and
is sometimes called external validity. It can take place on many levels, from a narrow
generalization within a limited substantive area to universal validity. In applied
research and consulting, the interest is primarily in specific applications of research
results. However, it is desirable and sometimes mandatory that academic research
gives a contribution to science in general, albeit it may be a limited contribution.
The favourite of science is reliability. A study with high reliability can be replicated
by others and everyone should arrive at roughly the same result. This is usually not
attainable when you study complex phenomena, especially when change is a major
force. Still reliability can perform a few odd jobs in case study research: as a police
function (uncover dishonest research); as an intelligence test (are the scientists clever or
stupid); and as a validity crutch (validity seems beyond reach and reliability is
established and validity is assumed) (Gummesson, 2000).
Others have pointed out the need for contingent criteria to evaluate qualitative
research in management and that there are institutionalized biases in favour of
quantitative research (Lee, 2006). For example, Guba and Lincoln (1994) argued that
qualitative research should not be evaluated by means of reliability and validity

alone those criteria were designed for quantitative research and suggest
trustworthiness, divided in four sub-criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability
and conformability. Seale (1999) lists several detailed efforts to establish general
quality criteria but advocates that such criteriology is non-productive. He sees
qualitative research as a craft skill in the same sense as the researchers experience and
personality are the most valuable instrument and that each methodology is affected by
that, including quantitative research. He wants to erase the borders between
philosophical, political and theoretical positions; research could benefit from whatever
there is, be it positivism, constructivism, or postmodernism. But, he is not as eclectic as
I am when I claim that we should include approaches from natural sciences as well.
This standpoint will be further explained in the section on network theory.
The first quality decision concerns what research to prioritize. It should follow the
industrial imperative: Do the right thing. But, who decides what is the right thing to
focus on? It creates a problem for innovative research as it may antagonize mainstream
supervisors, examiners, reviewers and funding bodies. They do not believe in it or they
simply do not grasp it. We have to accept that innovative research always involves
risk-taking.
Although I have argued well over 20 years now that academe should listen to what
manufacturing, services and government have learnt about quality I seem to be crying
in a desert (Gummesson, 2000). But we are addressing quality in business and
management research and why cannot we learn from its practice? Is it still that
business schools only go to sociology and ethnography to learn about research and
science? It certainly seems so when looking at the references to articles. How then are
we going to establish methodology in business and management?
Having accepted the choice of a certain research topic, the quality focus moves to
the implementation and outcome of the project. In Table I my own efforts to combine
lessons from quality management in business and academe, quality criteria and
strategies have been assembled in a checklist. It can be used in two ways. The first is
during a research project to avoid that early mistakes are repeated and contaminate
future stages of the project. It follows another industry imperative Do it right the first
time. However, it is essential to note that quality management in industry is primarily
focused on systematic assessment of continuous and controlled activities and not on
innovation. One of the most innovative companies since decades is 3M. It has boasted a
creative culture and proved that it gives results. When a Six Sigma programme was
implemented profitability stock price and shareholder value rose, mainly because
productivity was improved (meaning short-term cost reduction). After a couple of
years, the creative environment had declined to a stage where it is now critical to
re-establish its vitality (Hindo, 2007). If innovation is restricted to certain rules, it dies
by definition, but at certain stages, it can include elements of discipline and standard
procedure.
The second use is to assess the outcome of a project. Industry has gone from quality
control of the finished product to a focus on each element during the process. In
academe, there is a similar development albeit not as clear especially as a true research
project only contains a certain amount of repetitive behaviour and a larger element of
developmental behaviour. Research should not be the object of just a last minute
verdict. What is required is a delicate balance between making quality certain under
way without interfering with unorthodox and innovative thinking. The ideal is that a

Case study
research and
network theory
233

QROM
2,3

Readers should be able to follow the research

process and draw conclusions of their own

234

As far as realistically feasible researchers

should present their paradigm and
pre-understanding

The research should possess credibility

The researcher should have had adequate

access

Table I.
Checklist for quality
assurance of case study
research

Well written, intelligible report

A comprehensive account of the research process
A statement of the problem, purpose and research
questions of the study
A description of methods of data collection, coding,
analysis and interpretation procedures
A well documented and rich description of cases
Motives for the selection of cases
Limits of the research project
Clear presentation of results and conclusions
Information to the reader if taboo information has
been discovered but is made anonymous or
disregarded
Personal and professional values and if these have
changed in the course of the research
Values of the system under analysis
Theories and concepts that govern the project
together with the reasons for the choice of these
theories and concepts
The researchers prior experience and other pertinent
information on the researcher
Correct data including correct rendering of
statements and views of informants
How analysis and interpretation are supported by
data
Demonstrated confidence in the theory, concepts and
conclusions that are used or generated in the
research
Honest presentation of alternative interpretations
and contradictory data
The avoidance of deliberate or unintentional
deception
The conclusions should accord with one another
(internal logical consistency)
The actors in the cases should be able to recognize
what is presented in the report (external logical
consistency)
Presentation of all relevant data and information
used in the case study
Selected methods and techniques should be
appropriate to the problem, purpose and research
questions
Used methods and techniques that ensured adequate
access to the processes under study
Account of any difficulties in deploying desired
access methods
Account of any problems and limitations which
arose through denied access
Account of any problems and limitations in access
which arose through time and money constraints
How access limitations have possibly impaired the
research
(continued)

An assessment on the generality and validity

of the research

The research should make a contribution

The research process should be dynamic

The researcher should possess certain

personal qualities

To what areas the results apply

How closely the research represents the phenomenon
which the researcher aimed to study
If other research confirms or disconfirms the
findings
If results bear out or disagree with extant theories
and concepts
Contribute to increased knowledge
Deal with relevant problems
Optimize the trade-off between methods, techniques
and results
Be of value to the scientific community, the client,
and the public
Actively be made available to the scientific
community, the client, and the public
The extent to which the researcher has continuously
learnt through own reflection and dialogue with
others
Demonstrated creativity and openness to new
information and interpretations
The ability to switch between deep involvement and
distance
A demonstrated awareness of changes of research
design, methods application and so on during the
research process
Commitment to the task of research
Integrity and honesty, being able to voice his or her
conviction
Flexibility and openness, being able to adjust to
changed conditions and new even disturbing
information

Source: Gummesson (2000) reproduced with permission

project should not need any quality checks when finished; it has been taken care of
during the journey. That is what supervisors are for; they are coaches.
Nobody can score high on each issue; such a demand would inhibit innovation. The
goal should be to reach a satisfactory level with regard to the type of research and the
imperfections that occur in the practice of research. However, procedural adherence
I followed the rules and did it by the book is not sufficient; it will promote research
ritual over results.
The outcome of the quality assessment therefore is a weighted impression through
examiner reflection and dialogue. For example, a precise statement of the researchers
paradigm (point 2 in Table I) may be premature if the researcher is experimenting with
a new paradigm. It may not be clear what premises guided the researcher; this requires
further study in a new project. If the demand is initially too strict, it would impede
innovation. Another example is the demand for adequate access (point 4). There can be
many impediments in getting access but the awareness of access failures helps to
assess validity (point 5).

Case study
research and
network theory
235

Table I.

QROM
2,3

236

As case study research handles complexity, it seems natural that the assessment of
quality and productivity is complex, too. I mentioned earlier that the mere listing of
criteria and questions on quality applied to organizations soliciting quality awards
requires 40 to 50 pages. Mine is not that long but could of course be expanded. In its
current form, it is a manageable compromise and it is far beyond what is recommended
in methodology handbooks.
Ideally, the checklist should also include productivity and the links between
productivity and quality and the generation of new knowledge. However, nobody so
far has been able to find guidelines for such a trade-off. It is possible to establish
simplistic demands like two articles per year in blind reviewed top scientific journals
and books do not count. Although such statements may seem rock solid and
hands-on, they promote rigidity and tie the hands of scientists rather than stimulate
quality, productivity and innovation. They encourage risk avoidance, me-too
mainstream research and robot-like testing of extant theory, and they impose
arbitrary constraints on what is amenable to research all because this is convenient
to measure. It encourages ritual over results. The ritual should be a supportive enabler,
it should facilitate the researchers survival in a messy world, but the enabler is just a
means, not the end. Strict ritualism discourages true search which includes risk-taking
but can result in discovery and improved knowledge. At the end of the day even with
this convenient rigidity the overall assessment rests with the personal feelings of the
judges and their nose-and-tongue perception of the world. Objective criteria are
preferable (if they exist in a truly objective form) and intersubjective, peer-approved
criteria can facilitate research during a period (but not for ever). Researchers must also
be trusted with the ability to understand what is right.
Further, we have to acknowledge that the bulk of knowledge has not yet been
communicated because it lacks words or numbers. It is experienced by individual
researchers or research teams; it is tacit knowledge. Hopefully, it may some day
become explicit knowledge but that may take its time. Demanding immediate clarity is
the kiss of death before birth. To scorn intuition, sound judgment, common sense,
and experience is an expression of academic snobbism. Even these academic
bureaucratic and snob scientists end up with nose-and-tongue overall assessments,
where the tipping-point in one direction or the other may be no more than a personal
and emotional whim.
Network theory
Establishing the link between cases and networks
My first encounter with network theory came through sociograms in the 1960 s. They
described how Laura related to John, how John related to Richard, and so on. Since, the
1970 s, interorganizational networks have been successfully tried on, for example,
business-to-business marketing (B2B). These applications stayed with me and kept
pleading for attention. In the early 2000 s, I suspected that one of the big problems with
relationship marketing, customer relationship management (CRM), and one-to-one
marketing was their focus on the dyad, the relationship between a single supplier and a
single customer, rather than on the whole context in which the dyad is embedded.
I decided to write a book about networks in marketing. It first came out in Swedish
under the title Many-to-many Marketing with the subtitle From one-to-one to
many-to-many in the marketing of the network economy (Gummesson, 2004).

Network theory became enormously helpful to better understand relationships and

to design many-to-many marketing. I gradually realized that life is a network of
relationships in which interaction takes place. This must of course show in each
specific facet of life, including management. An observation that intrigued me was that
network theory is both a theory of life and a methodology to explore life. Sometimes
I hear that network thinking is just a metaphor which can be intriguing and
enlightening but hardly demands commitment. I am willing to defend a contrary
standpoint: networks are the real thing. If I am exposed to reasons to abandon the
network paradigm, I will be happy to do so. Until then, as network theory as no other
scientific approach is helping me to discover a new world, I will remain loyal. Network
theory is universal and can be applied to anything.
Setting out on my network Odyssey, I had no clue that network theory had such
wide capacity to handle complexity. Complexity is derived from the Latin verb
complecti (to twine together) and the noun complexus (network). The word system is
derived from the Greek systema, meaning a whole composed of many parts.
Complexity, including networks and systems thinking, has started a natural science
family, complexity theory. Its members embrace complexity instead of shunning it.
Among them are quantum physics, chaos theory, autopoiesis (self-organizing
systems), fractal geometry and string theory. I would like to bring case studies into the
complexity theory family, thus transcending the boundaries between social and
natural sciences.
Natural scientists promote visionary thinking in elevating theory to new heights.
They have even the audacity to suggest a theory of everything (Barrow, 1992). Social
scientists expose an inferiority complex to natural sciences and the physics envy to
use a Freud-inspired term, is widespread. This is unfortunate as social scientists rarely
have any idea what modern physics and mathematics are about. Greenwood and Levin
(2005, p. 53) say that Everyone is supposed to know by now that social research is
different from the study of atoms, molecules, rocks, tigers, slime molds, and other
physical objects. However, they have mainstream physics in mind which has its
place but they do not refer to modern physics and controversial, yet exciting visions
such as string theory.
How about medicine and psychology? Do they not clearly embrace both the
physical, mental and social sides of life? Orthodox western medicine likes to see itself
as a natural science. Social medicine, psychiatry and other border subdisciplines rank
low in the pecking order of medical doctors; hard core physically oriented doctors like
surgeons and cancer specialists reside in the top positions. Although Hippocrates
once founded medical science on seven cases and Freuds psychoanalysis is based on
five cases, orthodox western medicine today rejects clinical cases and condescendingly
stamps them as anecdotal. They want evidence-based medicine an extremist,
narrow form of contextless, statistical cause and effect research ground through a
bureaucratic apparatus.
There is nothing to stop us from using quantitative elements in case study research.
For example, a case of a merger can include spread-sheet analyses of financial data
from a series of years, and a statistical survey of how employees perceived the merger.
Coviello (2005) combines case study research with network theory and classifies the
former as qualitative and the latter as quantitative. This is so in her specific application
but the classification is not universally valid.

Case study
research and
network theory
237

QROM
2,3

238

I have found close affinity between case study research and network theory, but the
grammar is different. Case study research is not a theory. It is usually a verbal,
narrative description sometimes supplemented by graphs, pictures and quantitative
elements that matures into analysis and conceptualization. There is an art and science
of text interpretation (hermeneutics) offering guidelines but not strict rules. The
grammar of networks is nodes and links.
It was not until recently that it dawned on me how close the two methodologies are
in addressing the complexity of masses of data, contextual dependency, dynamic
situations, and fuzzy variables. It became clear to me that the two are not in conflict but
supplement each other.
Buchanan (2003, p. 6) makes a connection between social networks and natural
sciences:
Networks that have grown up under different conditions to meet markedly different needs
turn out to be almost identical in their architecture. Why? A new theoretical perspective is
helping to answer this question and is enabling researchers in almost every area of science to
begin tackling some of their most challenging and important problems.

He concludes that the network perspective has come into its own:
Physicists have entered into a new stage of their science and have come to realize that physics
is not only about physics anymore, about liquids, gases, electromagnetic fields, and physical
stuff in all its forms. At a deeper level, physics is really about organization it is an exploration
of the laws of pure form (p. 165, italics added).

As a physicist, Barabasi (2002, p. 200, p. 208) underscores the application to markets:

. . . understanding network effects becomes the key to survival in a rapidly evolving
new economy and In reality, a market is nothing but a directed network.
Properties and concepts of network theory
Network theory has a long history in social sciences (on social network analysis, see
Scott (1991), Degenne and Forse (1999) and Kilduff and Wenpin (2003); on applications
of networks and relational thinking, see Granovetter (1973, 1978, 1985), Schluter and
Lee (1993, 2003), Castells (1996), Gladwell (2000), Rosen (2002) and Tanner (2003). It
also has a long history in natural sciences in which there is currently a keen interest in
general network theory and the dissolution of boundaries between natural and social
sciences (Barrow, 1992; Zohar, 1997; Capra, 1997, 2002; Barabasi, 2002; Buchanan,
2003; Stacey, 2007). Network theory is used in organization theory (for a state-of-the-art
theoretical account see Czarniawska and Hernes (2005); for a practical application, see
Lipnack and Stamps (1994), and in marketing (Iacobucci, 1996; Moller and Wilson,
1996; Achrol and Kotler, 1999; Christopher et al., 2002; Gummesson, 2004; Coviello,
2005).
Next is an account of concepts and properties of network theory that I have
encountered in either or both social and natural sciences, but there is more from natural
sciences. Why this expose and why its length? The rationale is that I want to draw the
attention of researchers in management disciplines, who most likely limit their search
for methodology to the social sciences literature, to extend their search to modern
natural sciences from the past century and to those authors who already transcend the
boundaries between the two. The account is primarily extracted from sources given in

the previous paragraph, but in some instances specific references are given. To
contribute to the overview, Table II exhibits an index of the concepts and properties.
Nodes, hubs (highly connected nodes), links and interaction are the basic elements
of all networks. The nodes can represent anything of importance to describe and
explain a phenomenon. Often, a node is a person or an organization but it can just as
well be a concept, an event or a machine; it is a matter of researcher discretion. For
management disciplines which deal with both people and technology, especially
information technology that is now brought into every corner of society, it is essential
that both human and technological elements can be shown in interaction. One example
is the concept of high tech/high touch, saying that when technology becomes more
intense in our lives we need to compensate that with human touch. It can also be used
to emphasize the need for technological and human balance. High tech and high-touch
interact and are supplementary.
The network builds up the whole and the parts at the same time, offering an explicit
and orderly way of doing so. It is systemic or holistic and thus caters for the basic
property of context. It allows the study of fragmented detail but offers techniques to
put detail into context and not leave it hanging as does conventional statistical
research.
Each specific network applies the elements and properties in an individual way.
Networks therefore come in many shapes and are shaped by many forces. Examples
are the centralized network (one hub), the decentralized network (many hubs) and the
distributed network (no hub). The topology of networks refers to the network
landscape, its size and the structure of nodes and links.
Structured descriptions are usually linear, presenting events in steps like a chain
(an example is the well known value chain) or chronologically. Networks are
independent of sequence; they are nonlinear and allow iterations, the jumping back and
forth between the elements of a phenomenon. Linear equations require that anomalies
and other disturbing phenomena are sedated and toned down or the equation cannot
be solved but gone is validity.
Cascading failure
Centralised networks
Change
Cluster
Cluster coefficient
Connectors
Context
Contingency
Critical state
Decentralized
Degree exponent
Distributed networks
Dynamics
Embeddedness
Error tolerance
Note: For explanation, see the text

Fit-get-rich
Fitness
High tech/high touch
Holistic
Hub
Interaction
Iterative
Links
Nodes
Non-linear
Phase transition
Planned network
Power law
Preferential attachment
Process

Random network
Rich-get-richer
Robustness
Scale-free network
Self-organizing
Six degrees of separation
Small world
Spreading rate
Structure
Systemic
Threshold
Tipping point
Topology
Winner-takes-all

Case study
research and
network theory
239

Table II.
Network theory index in
alphabetical order

QROM
2,3

240

In early network theory, networks were treated as random. Randomness in the

mathematical sense exists in nature and social life as special cases but not as a general
characteristic. Business networks can include random dimensions but they are
primarily planned networks, modified by the intentions and behaviour of numerous
companies and consumers, by governments and others. The structures and
processes of networks have to be selective to be manageable. This becomes
particularly obvious when a network grows. A dyad includes two people and one link.
Double it to four people and the number of potential links increases to six; double it to
eight people and the potential links will be 28, and so on at an exponential rate. In
principle, networks are scale-free meaning that their size has no limit. In practice, they
are limited by specific conditions and circumstances such as a company owners
objectives, the size of the market, access to capital, and government regulations.
Clusters are dense groupings of nodes and links within which everybody can easily
reach everybody. The cluster coefficient is a measure of closeness. If the coefficient is
1.0 all members of the cluster are in contact with each other. It is zero when one
member is related to all but the others only relate to this one member. If in a cluster of
four, which allows a maximum of six links, only four links exist the coefficient becomes
0.66. Granovetters (1973) concept the strength of weak ties shows that society consists
of highly connected clusters which are linked to each other by weak but yet important
ties. His concept of embeddedness (Granovetter, 1985) everything is embedded in
networks and thus connected supports the notion of the small world, popularly
expressed as six degrees of separation (nobody is more than six steps away from
everybody else in the world).
Hubs (or connectors) are organizations or people with a particular gift or position to
attract others and build contacts with them. Becoming a hub is essential in business.
For example, the more people who visit your web site, the more visible you become and
the more you can sell. The number of hits and orders a web site receives is an indicator
of hub status. Marketing management then could be described as nodes fighting for
links. Studies of webpages show that they follow the mathematical power law. It says
the same as the well known 80/20 rule or Pareto optimal distribution. For example,
80 per cent of the links in a network go to 20 per cent of the nodes, that is, to the
powerful hubs. It can be expressed mathematically by the degree exponent which for
most systems varies between two and three. A study showed that the incoming links to
webpages had a degree exponent close to two telling us how many highly popular links
there were relative to the less popular (Barabasi, 2002, p. 68). It has been shown that the
more links a hub has, the more likely it is that this hub will be preferred by newcomers;
it is known as preferential attachment. It is an inherent growth factor the bigger you
are, the quicker you grow expressed as the rich-get-richer syndrome. In business,
large hubs kill small hubs through competition or swallow them through mergers and
acquisitions. This is claimed to be an unavoidable consequence of the networked
economy and growth strategies governed by natural laws (Barabasi, 2002, p. 200).
Not only size but also fitness explain the attractiveness of a hub. A dominant hub
with the most links can be overtaken by a new kid on the block with greater fitness.
Very rapidly, Google passed established search engines such as Alta Vista; fitness
compensated for the lack of hubs. At a slower rate and thanks to fitness, the Linux
open code operative system has become a threat to the Microsoft monopoly. The
fit-get-rich network is scale-free with many hubs. A few big hubs co-exist with

numerous links to a large number of small hubs with fewer links; it is oligopoly. The
winner-takes-all network leaves little to others and a single hub controls the bulk of the
links; it is monopoly. Once IBM was close to monopoly in computer hardware and only
intervention from anti-trust laws stopped them. Airlines are obvious networks and in
Europe the upstart Ryanair in 2007 passed the long established British Airways in size.
The reason was fitness, manifested in low price and overall efficiency.
Networks are traditionally perceived as structures but they are as much the
processes going on in the structures and the processes of changing the structures.
So network theory allows change, the dynamics that characterize life in general and is
a pressing issue in business. Phase transition is about transfer from disorder to order.
Power laws take over in phase transitions and the laws are general to behaviour in
nature and society. For example, there are parallels between atoms and consumers. At a
critical point, we have to stop viewing atoms as individuals as they group themselves
in communities where the atoms act in unison. We recognize this in marketing: going
from the individual to communities or segments that buy the same things for the same
reasons. Free capitalist markets are self-organizing when millions of consumers make
choices, not independently because they are influenced by the context of network
belonging, but the variation is so huge that the choices can only be loosely and
temporarily controlled. Companies try to exert control through individual
relationship-building; parasocial relationship-building though symbols such as
brands and storytelling; availability and distribution networks; and even the
creation of physical addiction (examples are medication and sugar). Companies are
trapped between order and chaos and the dream is to reach the state of zero degrees
Celsius when the rather disordered liquid water customers suddenly changes into
a perfectly ordered state ice.
Natures ecosystem has a greater topological robustness and error tolerance than
human-made systems. It can sustain basic functions even if many nodes and links go
bust. Cascading failure refers to a breakdown in one part of a network that builds up
and spreads throughout the network. While sometimes a small node or link can make
all the difference, sometimes the breakdown of a large number of nodes and links does
not incapacitate a network. There is a tipping point, meaning that events accumulate
and reach a point of sudden change. We may not note the signs of the gradual process
because we understand too little of network behaviour. The breakdown of a large hub
may cause instant failure. If the focus by business, government and the media is on big
corporations, the gradual disappearance of small firms and the slowing down of
start-ups and entrepreneurial activity will not be noted underway. Having reached the
tipping point, the process may be irreversible and the effect can hit hard.
When an epidemic or an innovation spreads we want to know the spreading rate
the likelihood that a person will adopt it and the critical threshold, which is the
quantity determined by the properties of the network in which it spreads. If the
spreading rate is below the critical threshold it will die out; if it is above, the number of
adopters will grow exponentially. The thresholds of individuals vary widely, but a
single persons behaviour can trigger collective behaviour and cause unexpected
and sudden events (Granovetter, 1978). We do not know why mobile phones suddenly
spread so fast and why other IT products did not or died. In management, we rely on
plausible explanations and storytelling about events and their links. New theory of

Case study
research and
network theory
241

QROM
2,3

242

critical states may in the future give other explanations, equally applicable to physical
and social phenomena (Buchanan, 2003, p. 106).
Several of the general law-like findings that we have discussed are partly
counterintuitive: the small world, the spreading rate, and the tipping point. It is
therefore essential that the outcome of studies in modern mathematics, physics and
other sciences is also tried on social phenomena. Much to the surprise of natural
scientists, certain network laws have been found to be universal and apply to such
differing phenomena as the foodweb of an ecosystem (who eats who), the connected
neurons in the human brain, the dissemination of innovation in consumer markets, the
breakdown of financial markets, and the growth of Google. The world wide web is
one of the largest human-made networks; it is an infrastructural network just like the
roads, the electricity grid and the telecom system. They all display general structures
and processes although the applications include specific features. There is obviously
some organizing principle of the world on a deeper level that transcends the boundaries
between social and natural sciences.
For example, history is usually associated with the humanities; it is the history of
people and nations. Anything that is exposed to change has a history and therefore not
only social sciences but also natural sciences are dependent on the past. Among them
are archaeology, evolutionary biology, geology and astronomy and the economic
sciences economic history, management, and economics. History, as we know it from
the school-books, is usually based on narrative efforts to link events, find possible
causality and make interpretations. The rationale for such storytelling is contingency;
unique events occur in unpredictable ways. If life is networks and there are laws that
control networks, sometimes mathematical laws can be found. As it is often claimed
that history at least in part determines the present and the future we need to be
able to chart events and their links better than just as accidents and qualitative
interpretations. It now seems as if the power laws and hubs of complex systems can
help us. It has been demonstrated that dominant web sites, mergers, globalization and
financial breakdowns obey the same laws as cells and fractals of self-similarity of river
networks and tree branches. General laws apply to some extent whether the object is
people, corporations, cells, galaxies or the internet.
Discussion
Network theory offers several advantages to researchers. In a systematic and rigorous,
yet innovative fashion it can accommodate more dimensions than any other approach
that I have come across with case study research as the runner up.
First, network theory offers an attitude to management thinking. By accepting the
network lenses of nodes and links and all the other concepts and properties that
network theory has brought to the fore, we can see management in a new and
productive light. Second, the application of network theory to management is a
supplement to case study research. By trying out network thinking, we will increase
our understanding for its potential for research in management. Third, it allows us to
work on different levels of sophistication including verbal and theoretical discourses,
field studies, experiments, computer simulations, graphics all the way from
hand-drawn sketches to computer-generated patterns, and mathematical and
statistical studies. It can be applied intuitively and experientially but also in a
scientific and scholarly mode. It fits both theoretical and practical requirements.

On the surface, cases and networks may seem very different. However, snorkelling
and diving into their underwater world has revealed a close kinship between the two.
They share the same mission: to uncover complexity. Case study research and network
theory are supplementary, and it is my contention that increased understanding of
networks will advance case study research. The two can make a marvellous team.
Case study research is associated with social sciences and qualitative research,
while network theory transcends the boundaries between social and natural sciences
and can be used both qualitatively and quantitatively. Social scientists do not seem to
tread on the turf of natural sciences while natural scientists, unabashedly offer
comments and conclusions on social phenomena. Network theory is used in social
sciences but to a lesser degree than case study research. Business schools in general are
not well-versed in network theory, some not even in case study research. However,
I sense quicker development of network theory than of case study methodology.
To really understand a methodology, you need first-hand experience of applying it
to the complex reality of management and you need a good coach and a mentor to
guide you. Once, after everybody had talked about the difficulties to grasp all the
subtleties of grounded theory, its foremost advocate Barney Glaser got tired and said:
Just do it! I am of the same mind as Barney. Academics often elaborate endlessly and
eloquently on abstractions and details instead of getting started and learn in action.
A study reported by Johnson et al. (2007) found eight ways of perceiving qualitative
management research. Having a clear identity which obviously quantitative social
researchers believe they have may seem enviable but it can be a token of fear of
complexity, a way to cocoon itself from outside threats. If we deal with a fuzzy reality
we have to match that with research techniques that allow for fuzziness, and I think
this is what modern physics and mathematics have been doing during the past 100
years. This has gone unnoticed by quantitative social sciences.
The abundance of literature on methodology gives me an uncanny feeling of being
exposed to Harry Potter-like witchcraft and wizardry beyond my intellectual
comprehension. For example, The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research is 1,210
pages and it is a goldmine (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005). But gold does not come in pure
form; it is embedded in rock and the magic trick is to extract the gold grains or
occasionally even lumps. Despite the rich content, I often cannot find what I am looking
for and I get distracted by less precious metals. At the same time, I feel that it is too
much. It suffocates me through its wealth and it alienates me: do I belong here? Of the
59 authors of the handbook, 21 come from education, 17 from sociology, ten from
anthropology, eight from communications, and three from other areas. One chapter
claims that economics, sociology and political science receive the bulk of social science
research money and dominate social science publications (Greenwood and Levin, 2005,
p. 53). However, economics and political science are not in the book, and psychology
and management are marginally mentioned. At Stockholm University, Sweden,
management as measured by the number of students, constitutes half of social sciences
and is ten times bigger than economics. In this sense, the handbook is not
representative of social sciences. In reviewing the Second International Congress of
Qualitative Inquiry, Lee (2006) notes that out of about 200 sessions, only one was
dedicated to qualitative research in different management disciplines. He further says:

Case study
research and
network theory
243

QROM
2,3

244

This under-representation appeared to be more attributable to qualitative researchers in

management failing to look beyond their normal audiences, rather than any unwillingness of
the congress to provide space for people conducting qualitative research in management.

It can be claimed that management has borrowed much of its methodology from other
sciences, not least statistics and sociology, and that the methods are universally
applicable. However, to productively deploy a method or research technique requires
preunderstanding of institutional conditions of the object under study. For example, to
use sampling techniques and make a survey inside a company or of its customers, to
interpret the data, and to transform them into decisions, action and eventually financial
results requires understanding of the profit concept and consumer behaviour. Market
research may be the only management area where the application of research
techniques has acquired a recognized identity. Another example, recognized only in
limited circles, is management action research (Gummesson, 2000; Coghlan and
Brannick, 2005). Originally inspired by Clark (1972), I adapted action research from
being a method to activate underprivileged groups to solve their own problems with
researcher support, to a method for management researchers to get privileged access
through close involvement as decision-makers and actors, simultaneously researching
the process for scholarly purposes. The key characteristic then is not primarily help
others help themselves but being involved in whats going on and understand it
through first hand experience.
Making research work requires both regulated procedure and judgment calls, both
preunderstanding and sensitivity to new data, both logical reasoning and
free-wheeling creativity. If too regulated research becomes mechanical, stifles the
minds of students, and makes them follow rituals that are against their experience and
beliefs, makes them simplify, reduce and even cheat to come to the finish of a study.
For the convenience of academics, a series of dubious strategies have become
mainstream; I am even inclined to refer to them as institutionalized deception. They
are part of intersubjective peer agreement and their application is little challenged;
critique may even jeopardize an academic career. As researchers, we may never have
understood the underpinning qualitative and subjective assumptions of what we do
our paradigm or we have forgotten how harmful assumptions can be if unwisely
chosen. Harmful and deceptive research strategies include routinely reducing human
beings to numbers, statistics, averages, distributions, probabilities, negligible
minorities (a negligible 0.1 per cent of Chinas population is 1.3 million individuals!),
side-effects, anomalies (irritating little things that disrupt approved theories or collapse
a beautiful structural equation), and contextless fragments. Further, straightforward
causality between an independent and a dependent variable is just a special case. It is
often no more than co-variation, and independent variables are the exception as they
are all embedded in a context. Delimitations by routinely excluding small factors and
weak links ignore the tipping point effect.
I agree with the claims of Greenwood and Levin (2005, p. 53) in their demand that
social sciences and universities must re-think their direction and mode of operation:
. . . one can only be amazed by the emphasis that so many conventional social scientists still
place on the claim that being scientific requires researchers to sever all relations with the
observed. Though epistemologically and methodologically indefensible, this view is largely
dominant in social science practice . . . This positivistic credo obviously is wrong and it leads
away from producing reliable information, meaningful interpretations, and social actions. . .

They further say that the positivist credo . . . has been subjected to generations of
critique, even from within conventional social sciences. Yet it persists, suggesting that
its social embeddedness itself deserves attention (italics added).
This embeddedness in networks of relationships, its contextual dependency, has led
me to the psychology and sociology of science. It may be claimed that methods should
not be handled individually by each researcher, although researcher personality
always exerts an influence on their practice.
I refer to it as persona and researchscape embracing the individual personalities
who inhabit a discipline or a university department, and their behaviour (Gummesson,
2006). Behind the scientific front, the persona and researchscape of real life offer a
spectrum of human virtues and frailties. Scientists are no more or less moral and
dedicated than any other human species. They, too, are affected by the seven deadly
sins and the counteracting seven virtues (in brackets): pride/hubris (humility), envy
(satisfaction), wrath (patience), indifference/laziness (diligence), greed (generosity),
gluttony (abstinence), and lust (chastity). We can apply yin and yang on each of these
opposites and recognize that it is the tension between them that makes life vibrate.
For example, a dash of greed is necessary to make a profit but coupled with generosity
it makes life so much more pleasant for all stakeholders, and too much humility is just
as counterproductive as is too much pride. Exposing that the alleged objectivity of
scientific research is tinted by human persona, widens the understanding of the reality
of science. I recommend that every methods book should have a chapter on persona
and researchscape.
Western science is full of stereotyped categories. The tendency to turn categories
into foes rather than co-existing buddies is self-deceptive. One of the two is appointed
superior the winner and the other may be tolerated as a temporary alternative, but
is in essence a looser. Examples are qualitative/quantitative, natural sciences/social
sciences, theory generation/theory testing, goods/services, supplier/customer,
hierarchy/network, and competition/cooperation. These categories are neither rooted
in the concrete mud of reality they are pseudo-empirical; nor are they well
conceptualized on a higher level of abstraction they are pseudo-theoretical. They are
stuck in the middle offering sweeping generalizations and paradigmatic assumptions
that are taken for granted, often unknowingly. For example, goods and services have
become separated in literature and research without proper attention to their
interdependency (Gronroos, 2007).
The natural sciences/social sciences divide is counterproductive, and it has been
mentioned above that modern physics can be viewed as organization theory. The divide
is based on a notion that natural life and social life obey different laws. This is true with
mainstream social and natural sciences but not with their modern versions. Both, case
study research and network theory look for patterns but they approach them differently.
In similar vein, the qualitative/quantitative dichotomy in social sciences and
management is unfortunate. It can be used in select applications but not as a general
vantage point for the choice of techniques for data generation; the need for close access is
a healthier start (Gummesson, 2000). All quantitative research includes qualitative and
subjective assumptions and conclusions. Interestingly, modern natural sciences and
mathematics represent a shift from quantity to quality and they are more concerned with
qualitative features than with precise values of variables (Capra, 1997, p. 134).

Case study
research and
network theory
245

QROM
2,3

246

Qualitative and quantitative, natural and social are not in conflict but they should be
treated in symbiosis.
Conclusions and recommendations
In summary, I would like to advance the following conclusions recommendations:
.
Further develop the quality and productivity of case study research as a
methodology, the way it is taught in classes and supervised for theses on all
levels, the way it is practiced, and the way it is assessed by examiners and others
who have the power to officially determine the quality of science.
.
Complexity in the broad sense in which it appears in complexity theory
including context, dynamics, nonlinearity and other related areas, and thus
addresses phenomena that are fuzzy, ambiguous, chaotic and unpredictable is
the core phenomenon which unifies case study research and network theory.
.
Consider network theory a supplementary and supportive companion to case
study methodology, start teaching it, and apply it in research, papers and theses
on all levels.
.
Management is in need of innovation and theory generation, more so than the
testing of contextless detail. Owing to their capacity to address complexity case
study research and network theory are ideal for creating better and more general
theory on a higher level of abstraction.
.
Bring in modern natural sciences and weed out old and inadequate mathematical
and statistical variants that are non-productive together with the pompous
declarations of being scientific when using numbers.
.
Accept that management and its subdisciplines constitute the bulk of social sciences
today and develop more textbooks, classes, and conference tracks that are based on
experience from research of management issues. Learn from the comprehensive
methodological developments in sociology, ethnography, education and other social
sciences but acknowledge that management has its own tradition of developing,
adapting and using methodology, and lift this to the fore.
.
Stimulate researchers create a scientific persona and researchscape that is less
dependent on bureaucratic regulations and cover-ups for human shortcomings
(such as defending status quo, a narrow world-view, rituals at the cost of results,
and greed and envy) and more dependent on a constructive will to contribute to
our understanding of management, with the ulterior motive to improve life
quality and offer a better society.
References
Achrol, R.S. and Kotler, P. (1999), Marketing in the network economy, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 63, pp. 146-63.
Bakir, A. and Bakir, V. (2006), Unpacking complexity, pinning down the elusiveness of
strategy, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 152-72.
Ballantyne, D. and Varey, R.J. (2006), Introducing dialogical orientation to the service-dominant
logic of marketing, in Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (Eds), The Service-dominant Logic of
Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 224-35.
Barabasi, A-L. (2002), Linked: The New Science of Networks, Perseus, Cambridge, MA.

Barrow, J.D. (1992), Theories of Everything, Vintage, London.

Buchanan, M. (2003), Small World, Phoenix, London.
Capra, F. (1997), The Web of Life, Flamingo/HarperCollins, London.
Capra, F. (2002), The Hidden Connections, HarperCollins, London.
Cassell, C., Symon, G., Buering, A. and Johnson, P. (2006), The role and status of qualitative
methods in management research: an empirical account, Management Decision, Vol. 44
No. 2, pp. 290-303.
Castells, M. (1996), The Rise of the Network Society, Blackwells, Oxford.
Christopher, M., Payne, A. and Ballantyne, D. (2002), Relationship Marketing, 2nd ed.,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Clark, P. (1972), Action Research and Organizational Change, Harper & Row, London.
Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. (2005), Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization, 2nd ed.,
Sage, London.
Coviello, N.E. (2005), Integrating qualitative and quantitative techniques in network analysis,
Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 39-60.
Czarniawska, B. and Hernes, T. (Eds) (2005), Actor-network Theory and Organizing, Liber &
Copenhagen Business School Press, Malmo.
Degenne, A. and Forse, M. (1999), Introducing Social Networks, Sage, London.
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds) (2005), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed.,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Flybjerg, B. (2006), Five misunderstandings about case-study research, Qualitative Inquiry,
Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 219-45.
Geertz, C. (1973), The Interpretation of Cultures, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Gladwell, M. (2000), The Tipping Point, Abacus, London.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Aldine, New York, NY.
Granovetter, M.S. (1973), The strength of weak ties, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78,
pp. 3-30.
Granovetter, M.S. (1978), Threshold models of collective behavior, American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 83, pp. 1420-43.
Granovetter, M.S. (1985), Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness,
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91, pp. 481-510.
Greenwood, D.J. and Levin, M. (2005), Reform of the social sciences and of universities through
action research, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative
Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 43-64.
Gronroos, C. (2007), Service Management and Marketing, Wiley, Chichester.
Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994), Competing paradigms in qualitative research,
in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 43-64.
Gummesson, E. (2000), Qualitative Methods in Management Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Gummesson, E. (2004), Many-to-many Marketing, Liber, Malmo.
Gummesson, E. (2006), Qualitative research in management: addressing complexity, context
and persona, Management Decision, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 167-79.

Case study
research and
network theory
247

QROM
2,3

248

Gummesson, E. (2007), Case study research, in Gustavsson, B. (Ed.), The Principles of

Knowledge Creation Methods, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Hindo, B. (2007), At 3M, a struggle between efficiency and creativity, Business Week, June 11,
pp. 8-12.
Iacobucci, D. (Ed.) (1996), Networks in Marketing, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Johnson, P., Buering, A., Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (2007), Defining qualitative management
research: an empirical investigation, Qualitative Research in Organizations and
Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 23-42.
Kilduff, M. and Wenpin, T. (2003), Social Networks and Organizations, Sage, London.
Lee, B. (2006), The Qualitative inquiry in the business and management field Symposium at the
Second International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, Qualitative Research in
Organization and Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 141-5.
Lipnack, J. and Stamps, J. (1994), The Age of the Network, Wiley, New York, NY.
Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (2006), Service-dominant logic: reactions, reflections and
refinements, Marketing Theory, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 281-8.
Moller, K. and Wilson, D. (Eds) (1996), Business Marketing: Interaction and Network Approach,
Kluwer, Boston, MA.
Rosen, E. (2002), The Anatomy of Buzz, Currency, New York, NY.
Schluter, M. and Lee, D. (1993), The R Factor, Hodder & Stoughton, London.
Schluter, M. and Lee, D. (2003), The R Option, The Relationship Foundation, Cambridge.
Scott, J. (1991), Social Network Analysis, Sage, London.
Seale, C. (1999), Quality in qualitative research, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 465-78.
Stacey, R. (2007), The challenge of human interdependence, European Business Review, Vol. 19
No. 4, pp. 292-302.
Tanner, L. (2003), Crowded Lives, Pluto Press, North Melbourne.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68, pp. 1-21.
Waddock, S.A. and Spangler, E. (2000), Action learning in leadership for change,
in Sherman, F. and Torbert, W. (Eds), Transforming Social Inquiry, Transforming
Social Action: New Paradigms for Crossing the Theory/practice Divide in Universities and
Communities, Kluwer, Boston, MA, pp. 207-28.
Yin, R.K. (1984), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zohar, D. (1997), Rewiring the Corporate Brain, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
About the author
Evert Gummesson is a Professor of Marketing at the Stockholm University School of Business.
His interests embrace services, quality management, relationship marketing and CRM, and
currently a network approach to a new logic of marketing, reflected in his latest book
Many-to-many Marketing. He is the author of several articles on methodology and theory
generation and one book, Qualitative Methods in Management Research. His article
(with Christopher Lovelock) Whither services marketing? in the Journal of Service Research,
won the American Marketing Associations Award for Best Article on Services in 2004.
Evert Gummesson can be contacted at: eg@fek.su.se
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Obituary
We are very saddened by the death on May 27 this year of Professor Frank Heller, a
member of the QROM Editorial Board. Frank had a most illustrious academic career
over many decades and the organizational research community in general owes him a
substantial debt. However, our memory of him is also more personal. Frank was
invariably supportive and encouraging of our work towards raising the profile of
qualitative research. He participated in seminars we organised, wrote book chapters for
us and reviewed articles all of this in a spirit of unfailing interest and willingness to
help. We also shared very many intellectually stimulating conversations at conferences
and in meetings which encouraged us to be both inclusive and reflexive in our work.
Most of all, we will remember him for his generosity, humour and great patience.
He will be deeply missed but will continue to inspire our work.

Obituary

249

Gillian Symon and Catherine Cassell

QROM Joint Editors

Qualitative Research in Organizations

and Management: An International
Journal
Vol. 2 No. 3, 2007
p. 249
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1746-5648