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

Authors

Marie-José Avenier, Léonard de Vinci Pôle Universitaire, Business Lab, Paris-La Défense, FranceFollow
Catherine Thomas, Nice - Sophia Antipolis UniversityFollow

Abstract

The expanding popularity of qualitative research, and more particularly case study re- search, in the field of Information Systems, Organization and Management research, seems to have been accompanied by an increasing divergence in the forms that this re- search takes, and by recurrent criticisms concerning its rigor. This paper develops a heuris- tic 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 guide- lines 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 crit- ical 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.

Recommended Citation

Avenier, Marie-José and Thomas, Catherine (2015) "Finding one’s way around various methodological guidelines for doing rigorous case studies: A comparison of four epistemological frameworks," Systèmes d'Information et Management: Vol. 20: Iss. 1, Article 4.
Available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/sim/vol20/iss1/4