Finding one’s way around various methodological guidelines for doing rigorous case studies: A comparison of four epistemological frameworks

Abstract

The expanding popularity of qualitative research, and more particularly case study research, in the field of Information Systems, Organization and Management research, seems to have been accompanied by an increasing divergence in the forms that this research takes, and by recurrent criticisms concerning its rigor. This paper develops a heuristic framework for guiding the design of a rigorous case study depending on the research's goal and epistemological framework, as well as for guiding its evaluation. It also highlights the fundamental reasons-namely the epistemological ones-for differences in the guidelines offered in the literature for conducting high quality case studies. In agreement with numerous authors, we argue for contingent evaluation criteria. We supplement these authors' works in two ways: (1) we consider various epistemological frameworks that do not appear in the classifications that they use, especially including critical realism and pragmatic constructivism; (2) we propose a set of contingent criteria to be used as a heuristic device for critically and knowledgeably building rigorous case studies within different epistemological traditions.

The Dialogue: an Essential Component to Consider “Organization as a Community of Persons”

“…The case studied in this article is anchored in the pragmatic constructivism epistemological paradigm (Avenier and Thomas 2015), thus labelled by Avenier (2011). This paradigm is very close to radical constructivism such as conceptualized by Von Glasersfeld (2001), Vico and James and Piaget (cited in Avenier 2010).…”

Methods for assessing the impact of research on innovation and development in the agriculture and food sectors

“…The more qualitative methods for understanding systemic processes better account for the possible variability of research contributions (Avenier and Thomas 2015). They also channel innovation for building the development capacities of stakeholders, enabling people to adapt their innovation processes, which could be diversified in the long term and contingent upon social realities.…”

The interplay between organizational capabilities and individual skills : Studies of technical and engineering consulting firms

“…the nature of knowledge, relies on a set of basic assumptions that concern the view of reality. However, according to Avenier and Thomas (2015), there is a lack of agreement among researchers on the classification of the epistemological frameworks utilized within contemporary organization and management studies. Traditionally, scholars have made a distinction between positivistic and interpretivist approaches (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988;Johnston, 2014;Prasad and Prasad, 2002).…”