Content area
Full Text
Case surveys bridge the gap between nomothetic surveys and idiographic case studies to combine their respective benefits of generalizable, cross-sectional analysis and in-depth, processual analysis. Methodological fragmentation has limited systematic utilization of numerous managerially relevant case studies. This article develops a comprehensive procedure synthesizing the individual strengths of previous efforts and illustrates this method in a case survey of mergers and acquisitions. The empirical application is used to generate directions for future methodological development.
Researchers tend to favor one of two major methods of gathering data, either the nomothetic survey method, which emphasizes quantitative analysis of a few variables across large samples, or the idiographic case study method, which focuses primarily on the qualitative, multiaspect, in-depth study of one or a few cases. Although the two preferences can be traced back to a classical paradigmatic debate (Burrell & Morgan, 1979), the key issue--many issues in few cases versus few issues in many observations--may actually be more pragmatic than paradigmatic. Few would disagree with the desirability of studying many issues in many cases instead of sacrificing either a number of issues or a number of observations or cases (cf. Lazarus, 1971). It is the lack of resources and methods with which to do both that limits the practical choice to one or the other. The present research reviewed and refined a methodology that can transcend these limitations and thereby bridge the nomothetic-idiographic gap (cf. Morey & Luthans, 1984}.
A lack of resources with which to conduct a sufficient number of rich case studies for statistical testing can be overcome by using previous case studies (cf. Lee, 1991). Several researchers have attempted to improve the poor utilization of prior research by developing methods for the quantitative meta-analysis of previous surveys to summarize their findings (e.g., Bangert-Drowns, 1986; Cooper, 1984; Glass, McGaw, & Smith, 1981; Hunter, Schmidt, & Jackson, 1982; Hyman, 1972; Kiecolt & Nathan, 1985). The methodological development of the meta-analysis of case studies has received much less attention. The few existing attempts have been called case survey (Lucas, 1974; Yin & Heald, 1975), case meta-analysis (Bullock & Tubbs, 1987), and structured content analysis of cases Jauch, Osborn, & & Martin, 1980); various nameless versions exist as well (e.g., Miller & Friesen, 1977). These methods differ significantly...