Presentation in research workshop at LUT 14.11.2007

1. Writing good case studies
14.11.2007
Miia Kosonen
PhD student

2. Background
• The need to understand what ’good case studies’ look
like and consist of, and how they are reported
• The advice ”Follow a recognized structure and present
your research as an interesting and convincing story”
(Darke et al., 1998) is indeed on universal level
• Reviewing literature on case studies and qualitative
research in general
• Analyzing four single-case studies on virtual
communities
• Writing the findings down into an essay

3. Structure of the case report (Yin, 1994)
Yin has described six illustrative structures:
• Linear-analytic (the most common, ‘standard’ structure): a literature
review, methodology, empirical findings, conclusions, and
implications
• Comparative: one case is described several times, and the various
descriptions of the explanations are compared
• Chronological: describes events over time in subsequent periods
• Theory-building: structured to develop a theoretical argument
• Suspense: the outcome is presented first, and the latter parts of the
description aim at explaining this outcome
• Unsequenced: no particular order is seen as important, implies
possibility for rearranging the content

4. Types of the case report (van der Blonk, 2003)
Complexity
Monologue Multilogue
Reduction
Chronology: Facts and events are
logically structured along a time line, so
that (historical) causality of events is
produced. The researcher is absent, and
works as an analyst. (format: linear)
Play: Describes facts from multiple
perspectives, interacting towards one
outcome or the climax of the case. The
researcher is present a director of the
play. (format: multilinear to one
outcome)
Biography: Facts and experiences
provide an interpreted historical ‘portrait
of a life’. The researcher is absent, and
works as a selective writer. (format:
multiple formats)
Voices: Meanings and social
constructions produce a case of
interactive complexity. The researcher is
present as a facilitator. (format: non-
linear, interactive and decentralized)

5. The Magic 7
1) What is the structure of the report in general? (Yin, 1994)
2) How do authors justify and describe their methods to increase credibility?
(White et al., 2003)
3) How have authors described the process, which has lead them from the
research questions into the main findings (displaying integrity of the
findings)? (Stake, 1995; White et al., 2003)
4) How to display diversity and not focus only on the dominant message?
(White et al., 2003)
5) How is the validity (credibility - transferability) of the results
communicated? The former refers to trustworthiness (Guba & Lincoln,
1985), and the latter deals with how to generalize the results into a wider
context (Yin, 1994).
6) What is the value of the findings to the audience, ie. theoretical and
managerial implications?
7) How could the style of writing be described? (van der Blonk, 2003). Is
the report a ‘readable package’ and coherent in writing?

6. A word about the analyzed articles
• Rothaermel & Sugiyama, 2001, Virtual internet communities and
commercial success: individual and community-level theory
grounded in the atypical case of TimeZone.com. Published in
Journal of Management
• Blanchard & Markus, 2004, The experienced “sense” of a virtual
community: characteristics and processes. Published in The DATA
BASE for Advances in Information Systems
• Jeppesen & Frederiksen, 2006, Why do users contribute to firm-
hosted user communities? The case of Computer-Controlled Music
Instruments. Published in Organization Science
• Ley, 2007, Vive Les Roses!: The architecture of commitment in an
online pregnancy and mothering group. Published in Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication

7. Findings
• Not surprisingly, all articles more or less follow
the standard linear-analytic structure
• Selecting the case is well justified, but the
methods ’just emerge’ (why?)
• In addition, the reader cannot follow the stages
of qualitative data analysis; some authors do not
give a single hint about the amount of data and
how they proceeded from the research
questions into the findings through the analysis.

8. Findings
• The authors ’respect their cases’ in a sense they focus on providing
a rich but coherent story
• Implications are nicely conjoined and communicated:
“The theory… contributes to the understanding of factors that are
associated with an individual’s e-based transactions via a virtual
Internet community and the overall success of the virtual community
itself. Thus, we believe that our theorizing attempts are managerially
relevant. In particular, the management of site content and of the
site itself are two levers that managers can pull to directly influence
the community of transaction aspect.” (Rothaermel & Sugiyama)
“A simple way to allocate firm recognition in return for user
innovation is to openly acknowledge their contributions in the most
visible fashion. A useful way to do this may be to host examples of
the user innovations in the firm domain and to credit innovators
openly. These points are essentially related to the broader issue of
firms’ user community management.” (Jeppesen & Fredriksen, p.
57-58)

9. Four cases, four styles
• Managerial story (R&S): the article adopts a normative approach,
organized as a flow of tentative propositions. The story’s voice is given to
the authors’ internal consult.
• Hybrid story (B&M): the article is an interesting combination of managerial
approach (how to build and maintain virtual communities) and in-depth
academic discussion (eg. theories on sense of community and identity). The
story’s voice is given to external observer, who desperately strives for
learning about a complex phenomenon.
• Scientific story (J&F): the article relies on rich and various data, which
allows authors to dwell deep into their context. Hence, the data talks, but in
a well-organized and coherent manner. Taking a strictly neutral and external
perspective to the phenomenon in question, the authors ‘leave their minds
behind’: a small hint of the researchers’ part in the process, such as
conducting qualitative data analysis, would open the case better for the
reader.
• Human story (L): the article is dedicated to community members’
experiences. It fluently describes the community biography and investigates
the potential explanations for different episodes. This is a convincing story,
whose voice is given to an internal observer (been there, done that).

10. Four cases, four styles
• Managerial story (R&S): the article adopts a normative approach,
organized as a flow of tentative propositions. The story’s voice is given to
the authors’ internal consult.
• Hybrid story (B&M): the article is an interesting combination of managerial
approach (how to build and maintain virtual communities) and in-depth
academic discussion (eg. theories on sense of community and identity). The
story’s voice is given to external observer, who desperately strives for
learning about a complex phenomenon.
• Scientific story (J&F): the article relies on rich and various data, which
allows authors to dwell deep into their context. Hence, the data talks, but in
a well-organized and coherent manner. Taking a strictly neutral and external
perspective to the phenomenon in question, the authors ‘leave their minds
behind’: a small hint of the researchers’ part in the process, such as
conducting qualitative data analysis, would open the case better for the
reader.
• Human story (L): the article is dedicated to community members’
experiences. It fluently describes the community biography and investigates
the potential explanations for different episodes. This is a convincing story,
whose voice is given to an internal observer (been there, done that).