Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1
Comparing Best Practice Cases in Creating an Environment Conducive to Development
Benefits, Growth and Investment
Introduction
The aim of this paper is to explain and justify the use of the case method and to propose details of
the case study research design to be implemented in the planned UNCTAD ‘best practice’ cases.
The case study method of research inquiry is widely employed as a valid research tool in a
number of the social sciences and including international business, foreign direct investment
(FDI) and public policy. The choice of appropriate research method is dependent upon the
research problem and the best methodological fit, and the case approach is particularly suitable
for the present UNCTAD studies because of its holistic and in-depth nature (Box 1). The method
is also well suited to international business research where data is collected from cross-border and
cross-cultural settings. As with any research tool, the application of a robust methodology is
critical for ensuring validity and reliability and ultimately the quality of the results obtained. The
case approach also has weaknesses as highlighted following, but when compared with
quantitative research or other qualitative methods (Annex I, Tables 1 & 2) it is most appropriate
for this UNCTAD research. Its particular strength is its ability to handle complex situations as
will be faced in the cross-country projects to be undertaken. The key issue is to ensure that the
researchers are highly skilled to elicit the appropriate data without bias and to handle the
complexities of data analysis. The relatively small ‘population’ from which best practice cases
are chosen means that it should be possible to achieve generalizability from a carefully selected
matched pair of cases, and thus overcome a common criticism of case study research.
Merits Deficiencies
Provides in-depth and holistic Time-consuming and expensive to
perspective administer
Multi-faceted; can show different Bias of both the recipient (researcher)
perspectives and supplier of information
Can show how processes work over time Data can be too rich, broad and complex
and give insights into cause and effect to be analyzed
Can serve both exploratory, descriptive Data analysis depends strongly on the
and explanatory purposes analytical skills of the researcher
Can be used alongside statistics and other Particularly difficult to analyze when
data and reports dealing with rich and complex data
Well suited to international business Limited generalizability; not
research where cross-border and cross- representative of entire populations
cultural settings increase complexity
The next section briefly summarizes the elements of the research design and process. Annex I
that follows provides the scientific justification for the choice of research design; and Annex II
presents some illustrations of studies where the case method has been employed in cross-country
research on investment.
2
UNCTAD has extensive experience of undertaking studies in very different international settings,
applying methodologies that are not too dissimilar from those that are proposed here. However, it
is hoped that the rigorous and systematic approach which is recommended will further strengthen
the results of these best practice cases, and thereby contribute to the objective of maximizing the
benefits from FDI.
Summary of Proposed Case Study Research Design for UNCTAD Best Practice Cases
The features of the research design are presented as a linear sequence below, but clearly some
activities will be undertaken in parallel and there will be feedback loops throughout the process..
There are 10 key elements in the research design:
1. Concise review of relevant theory and evidence a) from general literature and b) from the
selected countries/programmes. The aim is to identify the concepts underlying successful
FDI policies and the key features, characteristics and results of best practice; and thus to
highlight issues for detailed investigation in the case studies. At this stage efforts should
be made to identify some of the broad dimensions of similarities and differences in case
pairs, in order to assist the conduct of the cases and data analysis.
2. Selection of case studies. Selection of appropriate cases is critical given that only two
cases will be chosen. The matched pair of cases should be selected by expert evaluation.
Infrequently, diversity in best practices may not adequately captured in two cases; here it
will be necessary to supplement these main cases with one or more adjunct cases
(perhaps using secondary data). Initial proposals have been made by the UNCTAD
secretariat based on its experience and judgement; and the Expert Meeting on Comparing
Best Practices (UNCTAD, Geneva, 24-25 September) will be an appropriate forum for
finalizing the selection of the initial five thematic topics. An Expert Panel for Peer
Review should be established by UNCTAD to aid in case selection for the listed specific
topics (Annex to Secretariat report):
3. Selecting the case study research team. UNCTAD have extensive experience in
undertaking studies around the world, and the use of multi-cultural teams comprising
UNCTAD staff plus external advisers is well established. Avoidance of interviewer bias
is a major issue. It is recommended that the team for each matched pair of cases
comprises 1UNCTAD and/or 1 international adviser (with knowledge of FDI policies &
programmes, and the application of the case study method); and an in-country expert
(representing the country cases to be prepared; a person familiar with the case as officials
or well-placed academic). It would be ideal if the two country experts worked on a pair of
cases but this may not be feasible. In any event, there should be some commonality in
team membership across all the cases.
3
4. Identifying forms of information to be collected. Case study evidence will derive from
archival records; relevant reports and studies; tabular material and case study notes
obtained in interviews. The objective is that of data triangulation, namely, to corroborate
facts and interpretations, and synthesize information (corroboration will also be
facilitated by a common research team - termed investigator triangulation). There will be
a systematic secondary data collection process prior to the development of the case study
interview guide and the field research (some of this will have been obtained as part of the
initial literature review-see above). Subsequently, the central element of the case research
will be face-to-face in-depth interviews. Since the research questions and case studies
include elements of exploration, description and explanation, the interview guide will
include structured, semi-structured and open questions.
6. Creating a case study database. Creation of a formal database is required because of the
variety of sources of evidence and the requirement for integration of data and
convergence of evidence to enhance reliability. Many documents relevant to the case
studies will be collected during the course of the research, and the aim of the database is
to ensure that these are adequately recorded (for example, through an annotated
bibliography to assist storage and retrieval) and incorporated into the analysis process.
7. Analyzing the case study evidence. Data analysis in case study research is challenging and
time-consuming, given the range and volume of information collected. The interview
data is clearly core and will likely comprise a large volume of case notes and
transcriptions. Within and cross-case analysis will be conducted, involving a three level
process (as recommended by Miles and Huberman, 1994). This involves first, summarise
and package the data; and create text, coding and categories; second, repackage and
aggregate the data; and identify themes, trends and patterns in the overall data; and third,
develop and test the relationships to create an explanatory framework. Specialized
software is available to assist analysis of qualitative data, but this is not always very
useful.
8. Pilot case study. The first case study to be undertaken will be used as a pilot with an
evaluation of all aspects of the process, the results and implementation potential. A
Workshop should be convened to evaluate the pilot case. See also peer review
mechanisms following.
9. Peer review mechanisms. Peer review represents part of the triangulation process, and
will take place when a) the case is being designed and the pilot study has been
4
undertaken; b) interim conclusions have been developed, and advice is required on
transfer and implementation issues; and c) the draft report is available. A major challenge
for this case research that follows from the case selection method will be to draw specific
and practical lessons that can be replicated in other developing countries around the
world. It is suggested that the peer review panel are consulted on these issues of deriving
specific and practical best practice lessons. It is not uncommon in case research for third
party experts to be consulted to validate the case findings. The Expert Panel for Peer
Review (see 2. above) will undertake this role as well as assist in case selection.
10. Case study protocol – bringing it all together. The case study protocol is intended to
guide the investigator in undertaking the case study investigation and is a major way of
increasing the reliability of case study research. It will incorporate all of the elements
discussed above and is essentially a plan for the design and operationalization of the case
study.
• Field procedures
o Secondary data collection prior to field research
o Planning period for field research
o Access to the case study ‘sites’, names of sites to be visited, contact persons and
arrangement of visit
o Data collection plan, including amount of time for each visit, travel arrangements
o Expected preparation prior to each visit e.g. specific documents to be reviewed
o Follow-up activities e.g. sample ‘thank you’ letter
• A guide for the case study report - draft outline showing potential headings of the report.
The latter will comprise a concise main report with findings and lessons, plus an extended
5
Annex report (not published).
Since the two cases compare a developed and a developing country the ‘context’ for the
research in the pair of countries will be quite different ( in respect, for example, of
international trade arrangements). The pair of countries will be ‘matched’ in terms of best
practice policies, however, and the research process must be as consistent and
comparable as possible. A common case study protocol has an important role in ensuring
consistency, and the largely common study team has a major role to play too.
6
Annex 1
The aim of this background academic note is to provide an overview of the conceptual
foundations of the research process, and to explain and justify the use of case study research in
the planned UNCTAD studies on best practices in investment policies. The case studies on best
practices are designed to provide a pragmatic tool for transferring know-how in FDI policy
making and policy implementation. The research questions underlying the case studies are thus as
follows:
This review considers the stages in selection of the appropriate research design and methodology,
drawing upon mainly academic literature in the social sciences. The work of Eisenhardt (1989)
and Yin (2003) has proved influential in answering questions about what a case is and how it
should be designed to ensure rigour in the conduct of case research (see also Ragin and Becker,
1992; George and Bennett, 2005).. But there are varying perspectives on how such case research
should be undertaken, both within and between the social sciences (see Box 3). For example case
research is much less common in economics than in business & management, and within
management, it is more common in Europe than in the United States.
Interestingly, Yin (2003:15) observes that case studies may have at least five applications in
evaluation research: i) most important, explaining causal links in interventions that are too
complex for survey or experimental studies; ii) describing interventions and their real life context;
iii) illustrating certain topics within an evaluation descriptively; iv) exploring situations where the
evaluation has no clear set of outcomes; and v) using a case as meta-evaluation, namely a study
of a study.
Box 3: Recent Reviews of Journal Articles Using Case Research in the International
Business and Industrial Marketing Fields
In the international business and marketing subject areas, case research has recently been the subject of two
reviews of academic studies undertaken over the previous ten years (Piekkari, Welch and Paavilainen,
2007; Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki and Welch, 2007a). The former reviewed 134 articles published in key
international business journals in the years 1995-2005. The results highlighted considerable diversity and
some opposing views on how to undertake case studies, and often significant variation in approach
compared with the models recommended by the methodological literature. Despite the criticism that ‘the
concept of a “case study” is somewhat ill-defined, inconsistent and unstable’, some best practices identified
included: the use of unit triangulation in selection of interview informants; the specification of the
documents that were collected; and consistency in philosophical approach.
The second review in industrial marketing (Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki and Welch, 2007b) studied 145 case
studies in three key journals over the period 1997-2006). Its objective was to identify what ‘good’ case
research is and hence distinguished: common practice, best practice and innovative practice. Features of
the best and innovative practice are as follows:
7
theory.
• Selection of case study phenomena is based on the rationale of purposeful sampling.
• Case studies include different sources of data, namely in-depth interviews, observation, archival
• records.
• Selection of interview respondents ensures that data is collected from actors with different
perspectives with respect to investigated phenomena (e.g. employees, management, internal and
external actors of a firm etc).
• Authors explain the process of data analysis; more sophisticated methods of data analysis are
employed; pattern matching and constant comparison of findings with theory.
• Coding process is often conducted using specialised software such as Nudist, NVivo or Decision
Support Analysis.
• Findings are presented using: within and/or cross case study analysis, case history analysis, thematic
analysis, comparison between theory and data
• The authors apply triangulation techniques (data, between method and investigator triangulation)
and possibly seek respondent validation of case study findings and reports.
Sources: Piekkari, R., Welch, C. and Paavilainen, E. (2007), ‘The Case Study as Disciplinary Convention’,
mimeo (under review with Organizational Research Methods).
Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E. and Welch, C. (2007), ‘“Good” Case Research in Industrial Marketing:
Insights from Research Practice’, mimeo (under review with Industrial Marketing Management).
In the standard literature on research methodology, the process is seen as a linear one in which
decisions are made on: research philosophy and approach; choice of qualitative versus
quantitative methods; induction versus deduction; selection of particular research tools; and using
the case study method (definition and use; selecting single versus multiple case studies; number
of cases; data collection; and case study protocol). This process is shown in Figure 1 and
discussed following, and the implications for the UNCTAD best practice studies are developed.
The research philosophy that underlies the choice of the case study method is depicted in the
figure below in order to guide the subsequent discussion.
8
Choice of Research
Method
Research Philosophy
Qualitative Quantitative
e
Subjective Objective
Approach
Inductive Deductive
Method
Grounded Action Ethnography Case Experiment Survey
Theory Research Study
The interpretivist paradigm takes a view of the world and reality as being socially constructed and
influenced by people (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe, 1991). It is concerned with subjective,
qualitative phenomena which are context rich, and aims to understand what is happening in the
totality of each situation (Godfrey and Hill, 1995; Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2003).
Conversely the positivist paradigm considers that the social world exists externally and is
objectively determined, and thus its properties can be measured objectively (Easterby-Smith et
al., 1991). The approach in these UNCTAD policy-related studies is interpretivist since the
implementation of many policies and programmes is quite subjective, and hence the research
approach is equally subjective.
An important issue emerging from the above distinction between the two philosophical
paradigms is the appropriateness of qualitative versus quantitative research methods (Van
Maanen, 1979; Coviello, 2005). The particular research focus of each study will essentially
determine the methodological choice, given that both approaches have advantages and
disadvantages (Table 1). Qualitative research explores topics in more depth and detail than
quantitative research and is particularly relevant when the research goal is to explore a wide range
of dimensions associated with a particular topic. Quantitative research is more helpful when
9
there is a need to determine certain facts, or correlations between facts. In that respect, while
qualitative research commonly addresses “how” or “why” types of questions, while a quantitative
approach provides an answer to the “what” question (Yin, 2003). Quantitative methods are
particularly helpful when conducting research on a broad scale, since results obtained through a
well conducted statistical testing are safer for purposes of generalisation, whereas results of
qualitative research will depict the reality in more detail, but may have limited generalizability.
10
Can be valid and reliable: Can be valid and reliable:
largely depends on skill and largely depends on the
rigour of the researcher measurement device or
instrument used
Less generalizable More generalizable
While qualitative research methods and quantitative methods and are often seen as opposing and
polarised views, they are commonly used in conjunction with each other. The two research
methods can both provide valuable contributions to scientific knowledge, and hence, should be
regarded as complementary not competing, and used separately or together depending on their
ability to provide the best answer to the research question (Van Maanen, 1979). These mixed
methodological approaches tend to view qualitative and quantitative methods as a continuum
rather than a dichotomy. In that respect, particular research questions may involve interconnected
qualitative and quantitative components or aspects, such as questions including ‘what and how’
or ‘what and why’ (Patton, 2002; Coviello, 2005).
In these UNCTAD best practice studies qualitative research is appropriate because of the range
and depth of information required to identify state-of-the-art FDI policies and facilitate their
transfer and implementation. Quantitative data will, of course, be obtained as part of the
information gathering process and is essential as part of the country/programme case selection
process in evaluating performance. As shown below, the research questions have interconnected
qualitative and quantitative elements.
The interpretivist or positivist paradigms are also differentiated by approaches that are inductive
or deductive respectively. The former generally supports theory generation, while the latter aims
at theory testing. The inductive approach generates theory based on the empirical data collected
in a situation where there are few or no theoretical preconceptions. In the deductive approach,
hypotheses are typically developed from existing theories, which are then tested against the data
collected. Perry (1988:78) argues that ‘it is unlikely that any researcher could genuinely separate
the two processes’ since a certain theoretical foundation is necessary to design and implement
empirical study (see also Miles and Huberman, 1994).
The approach taken here is that prior theory (and associated empirical evidence) is important for
the design of the qualitative study and the analysis of qualitative data (Miles and Huberman,
1994; Yin, 1993). Indeed the fundamental principle is that ‘best practice’ cases can be identified
a priori from prior research. However there are strong elements of induction especially in the
detailed understanding of the best practices and the interpretation of information obtained during
the studies.
The starting point for selecting the appropriate research method is the research problem and the
best methodological fit (Bryman, 1989; Patton, 1990), but will also depend on external
constraints - such as cost and time (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2002). Table 2 provides an outline of
the basic research methods considered, along with their key merits and deficiencies. The
subsequent paragraphs justify the particular choice of the case study as most appropriate within
the context of the present study.
11
Table 2: Evaluating Different Research Methods
Research Method Merits Deficiencies
Survey Generalizability of findings Not in-depth, hence not useful
from large samples for studying complex or
Especially useful for hypothesis conceptual issues
testing Responses may be biased by the
Easy and inexpensive to questions
administer Statistical validity and reliability
Offers anonymity concerns
Problems with low-response
rates
Experiment Robust control of variables High cost in terms of time and
possible money
Causality can be established Legal and ethical constraints
Recruiting subjects is not easy
Artificial
Grounded Theory Systematic generation of new Perspective-based methodology
theory from data (interaction (perceptions vary)
between data collection and Difficult when conceptualising
analysis) complex phenomena, requires
Analyse experiences from the strong research capabilities
standpoint of those who live it Not recommended for
Context-based and process- description
oriented Subject to researcher bias
Generalizability questionable
Case Study Provides in-depth and holistic Limited generalizability; not
perspective representative of entire
Multi-faceted; can show populations
different perspectives Time-consuming and expensive
Can show how processes work to administer
over time and give insights into Bias of both the recipient
cause and effect (researcher) and supplier of
Can serve both exploratory, information
descriptive and explanatory Data can be too rich, broad and
purposes complex to be analyzed
Can supplement statistics or Data analysis depends strongly
survey results on the analytical skills of the
researcher
Particularly difficult when
dealing with rich and complex
data
Ethnography In-depth and holistic Bias of the researcher
description Requires strong research
Can identify causalities capabilities
Time-demanding
Action Research Findings have strong practical Requires full access to the
implications organization
Provides unique insights Perceived as improving
mainly practitioner and not
academic knowledge
12
Time consuming
Sources: McGrath (1982); Bryman (1989); Remenyi et al. (1998); Tang (2007); Liouka, (2007)
Only the case study and survey methods are potentially appropriate for this UNCTAD best
practice research. Case study research provides the best fit since the aim is to provide a holistic
and in-depth approach. The survey is wider and narrower in its approach and hence less useful.
The two methods begin to merge if a large number of interviews are undertaken (see Lillis and
Mundy, 2005 in Piekkari et al., 2007a). In this UNCTAD research, the key issue is to obtain in-
depth perspectives from a range of relevant individuals and organizations, which differs from a
conventional survey approach. Ghauri (2004:111) argues that ‘the case study method is
particularly considered well suited to international business research where data is collected from
cross-border and cross-cultural settings. Surveys and/or experiments raise serious questions about
equivalence and comparability of data collected from different countries’. By comparison the
case study method enables researchers ‘to check their understanding and keep on answering
questions until they obtain sufficient answers and interpretations’.
The case study method, which uses multiple sources of evidence, is the method of preference for
addressing ‘how’ questions; it enables the exploration and explanation of a phenomenon
comprehensively within its natural social situations (Stake, 2000; Yin, 1994). The flexibility of
the method facilitates the discovery of considerably broad and rich facets of a phenomenon, and
thus allows new insights to emerge (Eisenhardt, 1989). However, case studies can be exploratory,
descriptive or explanatory (Yin, 2003).The exploratory approach is designed to answer ‘what’
questions; the descriptive approach is taken to portray an accurate profile of the events and
situations; and the explanatory approach seeks to establish causal relationships between variables
and answer ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions. All three approaches are used in these cases, as shown in
the research questions:
13
Yin (2003) suggests four types of case study design, namely, holistic single case; embedded
single case with multiple units of analysis; and multiple cases with one or multiple units of
analysis.
Single case study research is most suitable when the particular case is critical or unique or where
the single case is the representative or typical of a large population (Yin, 2003). It is also valuable
for longitudinal research, where the case is studied at different points in time.
On the other hand, multiple case studies extend the scope of the investigation and the degrees of
freedom, increase the potential for generalizability and provide more robust results (Eisenhardt,
1989; Miles and Huberman, 1984; Patton, 2002). The use of multiple cases allows the researcher
to search for cross-case patterns and themes to provide accurate and reliable theory and capture
novel findings that may exist in the data (Eisenhardt, 1989; Miles and Huberman, 1994).
Selection of cases in multiple case design can be based on literal replication where similar results
are found for predictable reasons; or theoretical replication where contrary results are found for
predictable reasons. The replicable or typical case logic is appropriate for the present UNCTAD
studies since the aim is to confirm and support the notion of ‘best practice’; the selection of one
case from a developed country and one from a developing country does create heterogeneity in
terms of the context and makes the country case selection very important. This issue is discussed
further below.
Number of cases
There are no precise rules as to the number of cases to be selected in multiple case study research.
Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest that the number of cases selected depends upon how rich
and complex the within-case sampling is. Eisenhardt (1989) suggests that four to ten cases work
well; her view that with fewer than four cases it is difficult to generate theory has, however, been
criticized (Dyer and Wilkins, 1991).With high complexity, a maximum of 15 cases is
recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994). With more than this a study ‘can become
unwieldy’ with excessive amounts of data ‘and too many permutations to account for’ (Miles and
Huberman, 1994:30).
It is often suggested that multiple-case designs are preferable to single-case designs, but the
former themselves can be quite varied in nature. Piekkari et al. (2007a), for instance, highlight
examples of different case designs within the same study, namely, longitudinal with matched-pair
cases; in-depth together with limited depth cases; in-depth ‘main’ cases with ‘adjunct’ cases to
validate emergent findings; secondary data-based cases with interview-based cases.
Yin (2003) suggests that even two cases provide the possibility of direct replication. Thus the
contexts of the two cases are likely to differ to some extent; and if common conclusions can be
derived, the external generalizability of the findings will be increased. Two contrasting cases may
be selected if the aim is not direct replication; in this instance, if the subsequent findings support
the hypothesized contrast, the results represent a strong start towards theoretical replication.
According to Piekkari et al. (2007a) an innovative matched pair design was that used by Buck
and Shahrim (2005) and Buck, Filatochev, Nolan and Wright (2000). The latter research involved
identifying a pair of Russian/Chinese cases, ‘chosen carefully to hold many factors constant and
to identify the impact of different reform paths’ (Buck et al., 2000:386).
In these UNCTAD best practice cases, a matched pair of cases is appropriate to achieve
replication for a number of reasons: First, A single case approach may miss some key aspects of
diversity. Secondly, the overall characteristics of ‘best practice’ may not totally obvious from a
single case. Third, conversely, given the relatively small ‘population’ from which best practice
14
cases are chosen, it should be possible to achieve generalizability from a carefully selected
matched pair. In some situations, diversity in best practices may not adequately captured in two
cases; here it may be necessary to supplement these main cases with, for example, one or more
adjunct cases (perhaps using secondary data).
The appropriate form of purposeful sampling for these UNCTAD studies is a combination of
criterion sampling and extreme case sampling. According to Patton (2002), criterion sampling
involves picking cases that meet some criterion, in this instance best practice in FDI. Extreme or
deviant case (outlier) sampling means ‘Learning from unusual manifestations of the phenomenon
of interest, for example, outstanding successes…’ (Patton, 2002: 243).
Given the sampling strategy, the choice of best practice cases is critical for the present UNCTAD
studies. Initial proposals have been made by the UNCTAD secretariat based on its experience and
judgement. However, the Expert Meeting on Comparing Best Practices (UNCTAD, Geneva, 24-
25 September 2007) will be an appropriate forum for finalizing the selection of the initial five
thematic topics through the mechanism of expert evaluation. The definition of ‘best practice’ is
that developed by UNCTAD (2007: 5), namely ‘optimal policies that facilitate the strongest
contribution of FDI consistent with economic potential, national development objectives and the
evolving international landscape.’
Unit of analysis
In designing case research it is important to be clear on the primary unit of analysis, and to avoid
confusing, for example, the unit of data collection (e.g. interviews with individuals) with the unit
of analysis (e.g. the company). The unit of analysis derives from the research question(s) of the
study, which in this UNCTAD research is the best practice country/programme. In some
instances the FDI programme(s) may be quite specific and clearly defined; in others, they may be
closely integrated within overall government economic policy and hence the country dimension is
very significant. Moreover, since a matched pair case methodology is recommended, the cross-
country dimensions in respect of the overall investment climate, market reform and liberalization
internally and externally, and entry mode issues as well as specific policies and programmes may
be significant in determining best practice. In this sense the choice of one developed country and
one developing country case is beneficial since the context will be markedly different.
15
Conversely the developing country experience will assist in identifying what is feasible in
transferring best practice to other developing nations.
One way ahead is to enlist a panel of FDI experts for consultation on issues of transfer and
implementation to other developing nations. It is not uncommon practice in case research for
third party experts to be consulted to validate the case findings.
It is proposed that such an expert panel will act more generally as a peer review group. Peer
review represents part of the triangulation process and should take place when a) the case is being
designed; b) interim conclusions have been developed, and advice is required on transfer and
implementation issues (as above); and c) the draft report is available. The following selection
criteria are proposed for panel selection:
Data collection
The three principles of data collection are: i) the use multiple sources of evidence; ii) the creation
of a case study database; and iii) the maintenance of a chain of evidence (Yin, 2003).
Using multiple sources of evidence helps to improve the validity of case study research.
Triangulation is very important and can be used to strengthen a study by combining methods or
using several types of data (Patton, 2002). Through triangulation the accuracy of judgements and
results can be improved and the validity of the research enhanced (Ghauri and Grønhaug,
2002).Various forms of triangulation exist, principally, data triangulation where different sources
of data are used; investigator triangulation involving the use of different researchers; theory
triangulation using multiple perspectives; and methodological triangulation using multiple
research methods (Patton, 1987). In these UNCTAD studies, data, investigator and
methodological triangulation are proposed to be employed.
Creating a case study database. It is argued that the lack of a formal database is a deficiency of
some case study research. Its significance derives from the variety of sources of evidence and the
requirement for integration of data and convergence of evidence to enhance reliability. Case study
evidence may derive from archival records; relevant reports and studies; tabular material and case
study notes obtained in interviews.
Maintaining a chain of evidence. The principle is to permit the reader of the case to follow the
derivation of the evidence, extending from initial research questions to case study conclusions.
Citations to the relevant sections of the case study database are necessary.
16
• An introduction to and overview of the case study and purpose of protocol
o Case study objectives and research questions
o Conceptual underpinnings derived from literature review (derived from review of
theory and evidence
o Role of protocol in guiding the case study investigator
o Timeline
o Resources and budgets
• Field procedures
o Secondary data collection prior to field research
o Planning period for field research
o Access to the case study ‘sites’, names of sites to be visited, contact persons and
arrangement of visit
o Data collection plan, including amount of time for each visit, travel arrangements
o Expected preparation prior to each visit e.g. specific documents to be reviewed
o Follow-up activities e.g. sample ‘thank you’ letter
• A guide for the case study report (draft outline showing potential headings of the report)
The role of the researcher is vital to the specification of the case study protocol, including
research design and interview processes. Preparation from background reports and studies and
previous interviews will assist the credibility of the interviewer and thus develop trust to probe
and confirm responses. Using appropriate language helps develop trust and care needs to be taken
to use language the respondents are familiar with (Easterby-Smith et al., 1991). Interview bias is
a concern and may be a particular challenge in the current case studies when multiple researchers
(of different nationalities and backgrounds) will be involved. Thus the interviewer(s) can impose
their own frame of reference on the respondents, both when questions are asked and as answers
are interpreted (Easterby-Smith et al., 1991). A clear and detailed case study protocol is essential,
but UNCTAD has extensive experience in using such research teams.
References
Bryman, A. (1989), Research Methods and Organization Studies, London: Unwin Hyman.
Buck, T. and Shahrim, A. (2005), ‘The Translation of Corporate Governance Changes Across
National Cultures: The Case of Germany, Journal of International Business Studies, 36(1): 42-61.
Buck, T., Filatochev, I., Nolan, P. and Wright, M. (2000), ‘Different Paths to Economic Reform
in Russia and China: Causes and Consequences’, Journal of World Business, 35(4): 379-400.
17
Coviello, N.E. (2005), ‘Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Techniques in Network
Analysis’, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 8(1): 39-60.
Coviello, N. E. (2006), ‘The Network Dynamics of International New Ventures’, Journal of
International Business Studies, 37(5): 1-19.
Dyer, W.G. and Wilkins, A.L. (1991), ‘Better Stories, Not Better Constructs, To Generate Better
Theory: A Rejoinder to Eisenhardt’, Academy of Management Review, 16(3): 613-619.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (1991), Management Research. An Introduction,
London: Sage Publications.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), ‘Building Theories from Case Study Research’, Academy of
Management Review, 14 (4): 532-550.
Fletcher, M. (2007), Internationalising Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs): A Learning
Approach, Doctoral Thesis, Glasgow, UK: University of Glasgow, April.
George, A.L. and Bennett, A. (2005), Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social
Sciences, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Godfrey P.C. and Hill, C.W.L. (1995), ‘The Problem of Unobservables in Strategic Management
Research’, Strategic Management Journal, 16 (4): 519-533.
Ghauri, P. (1994) ‘Designing and Conducting Case Studies in International Business Research’ in
Marschan-Piekkari, R. and Welch, C. (2004) (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods
for International Business, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 109-124.
Ghauri, P. and Grønhaug, K. (2002) (2nd ed.), Research Methods in Business Studies, Harlow,
UK: FT Prentice Hall.
Hurmerinta-Peltomäki, L. and Nummela, N. (2006), ‘Mixed Methods in International Business
Research: A Value-added Perspective’, Management International Review, 46(4): 439-459.
Marschan-Piekkari, R. and Welch, C. (2004) (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods
for International Business, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
McGrath, J.E. (1982), ‘Dilemmatics: The Study of Research Choice and Dilemmas’, in J.E.
McGrath and R.A. Kulka (eds.), Judgment Calls in Research, Beverley Hills, CA: Sage
Publications, 69-102.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, London: Sage Publications.
Patton, M.Q. (2002) (3rd ed.), Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, London: Sage
Publications.
Patton, M.Q (1987), How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation, Newbury, Ca: Sage
Publications.
Perry, C. (1998), ‘Processes of a Case Study Methodology for Postgraduate Research in M
Marketing’, European Journal of Marketing, 32 (9/10: 785-802.
Piekkari, R., Welch, C. and Paavilainen, E. (2007a), ‘The Case Study as Disciplinary
Convention’, mimeo (under review with Organizational Research Methods).
Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E. and Welch, C. (2007b), ‘“Good” Case Research in Industrial
Marketing: Insights from Research Practice’, mimeo (under review with Industrial Marketing
Management).
Ragin, C.S and Becker, H. S. (1992), What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social
Enquiry, Cambridge University Press.
Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A. and Swartz, E. (1998), Doing Research in Business and
Management: An Introduction to Process and Method, London: Sage Publications.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2003), Research Methods for Business Students,
London: Prentice Hall.
Stake, R.E. (2000) (2nd ed.), ‘Case Studies’ in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of
Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Tang, Y.K. (2007, Networking for the Internationalization of SMEs: Evidence from the Chinese
Context, Doctoral Thesis, Glasgow, UK: University of Glasgow, April.
18
UNCTAD (2007), Comparing Best Practice Cases in Creating an Environment Conducive to
Development Benefits, Growth and Investment. Note by the UNCTAD Secretariat,
TD/B/COM.2/EM.22/2, Geneva, 13 July.
Van Maanen, J. (1979), ‘Reclaiming Qualitative Methods for Organizational Research: A
Preface’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 520-526.
Yin, R.K. (2003) (3rd ed.), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, London: Sage
Publications.
19
Annex II
Selected Illustrations of Case Study Approach on FDI Policy and Related Issues
A brief search on the application of the comparative case study approach in the FDI area did not
identify any studies which were fully comparable with the method to be employed in these
UNCTAD best practice cases. However, there are lessons that can be drawn from the illustrations
presented below. First, the absence of a formal methodological discussion is a weakness of some
studies; by contrast the OECD benchmarking study (#5) contains a good methodology section.
Second, the ‘case study method’ is not formally employed except in #2. This is a reflection to
some extent of the fact that it is neither well known nor accepted in economic research. However,
in their review of cases in international business and industrial marketing, Piekkari et al. (2007a)
also noted that authors did not always designate their setting as a ‘case’ even though data were
collected in a single or limited number of empirical settings. Third, most of the studies contained
lengthy literature reviews which should be avoided in this UNCTAD research.
2. Buck, T., Filatochev, I., Nolan, P. and Wright, M. (2000), ‘Different Paths to Economic
Reform in Russia and China: Causes and Consequences’, Journal of World Business, 35(4): 379-
400.
This matched pair case study of Russia and China is written up as an academic journal article and
thus is inevitably brief. The research questions are specified, the aim being to assess the impact of
reforms at an enterprise level, with particular reference to corporate governance, output
restructuring, attitudes towards foreign investors and entry modes. The paper uses two
longitudinal cases from the automotive industry, in order to avoid the problem of industry effects;
similarly two plants that were initially identical were chosen for comparison. A useful attempt is
made to analyse the national influences on paths to economic reform.
Comment: A problem that academics working on qualitative and particularly case study research
face is space to explain the detail including the methodology (although reviewers in good journals
place very strong weight on the latter nowadays). Nevertheless the article is useful as an example
of matched pair case design.
3. N. Wilson and J. Cacho (2007), Linkages Between Foreign Direct Investment, Trade and
Trade Policy. An Economic Analysis with application to the Food Sector in OECD Countries and
Case Studies in Ghana, Mozambique, Tunisia and Uganda, OECD Trade Policy Working Paper
No. 50, Paris, 02 March.
20
This research report (81 pages) involved case studies of four African countries (Ghana,
Mozambique, Tunisia and Uganda), chosen to reflect different regions and different historical and
linguistic connections with OECD countries; and on the basis of contacts in the countries. The
case approach was used because of limited data availability, although it was acknowledged that
this approach permitted a depth of understanding that would not have been possible with standard
statistical analysis. Interviews were undertaken with investment promotion agencies, officials in
government ministries of trade and firms, with each case including a review of one agribusiness
firm that involves FDI (mostly joint ventures); the latter were quite brief (3 pages approximately).
Comment: This was a country case study-based project, mainly comprising secondary data and
statistical analyses, with the company cases having a limited supportive role.
4. Y. A. Wei and V.N. Balasubramanyam (eds.) (2004), Foreign Direct Investment: Six Country
Case Studies, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Contains comparative country cases written by a number of authors around the themes of the
determinants, characteristics and impact of FDI in terms of economic growth and development.
The book (218 pages) was reviewed B. Andreosso-O’Callaghan in Transnational Corporations
journal (14(2), August 2005), where she observed that ‘the book suffers from the absence of a
synthetic chapter pulling together the lessons drawn from the individual case studies’.
Comment: Apparently no detailed methodology for the design of the country cases, and an
absence of integration and comparative evaluation of the cases.
5. OECD (2005), Macro-Policies for Growth and Productivity. Synthesis and Benchmarking
User Guide, Paris.
This is mentioned here because of its methodology. A three step benchmarking approach
compares country performance and highlights important policy areas. First step, benchmarks are
defined for each of four micro-drivers. Second step, the business environment is defined for each
growth driver. Third step, the relative performance of the various parts of the business
environment is undertaken through regression analysis. It is acknowledged that the benchmarking
methodology is still experimental and a number of weaknesses are identified. Finally, the
benchmarking methodology is supplemented by peer review.
Comment: This is not case-based research but has been included because it provides a good
example of a systematic methodology (recognizing weaknesses) which is clearly written-up in the
document.
21