Business Research Method

1. Case Studies as Natural Experiments (1984)
By Allen S. Lee

2. PRESENTATION LAYOUT
2
 Introduction
 What is an Organizational Case Study?
 Conceptions of Objectivist Research?
 Intersection of the Two Schools of Thoughts
 Conducting a Case Study as a Natural Experiment
 Relevance with Other Area’s
 Suitability of Natural Experiment with Group Research Project
 References

3. Introduction
3
• Social sciences revolves around two Philosophies
Objectivist Subjectivist
Social science should be modeled on natural science Social science requires methods radically different
from those of natural science
Justification – The methods of natural science are
the only legitimate methods for use in social science
Justification – The social reality examined by social
science is fundamentally different from the physical
reality examined by natural science
Methods – Inferential statistics, hypothesis testing,
mathematical analysis, and experiment and quasi-
experimental design
Methods – Ethnography, hermeneutics,
phenomenology, and case studies
• In reference to Study conducted by Morey and Luthans (1984) Organizational Case
studies can be used to fulfill this gap between both the school of thoughts. The goal can
be achieved by using Case studies as a form of Natural Experiment.

4. What is an Organizational Case Study?
4
• Organizational case study can be defined
as “Intense study of single case where the
case consist of entire configuration
(individual, group etc) in organization
natural settings, which the case researcher
passively observes in detail of event which
have incurred in their natural
organizational settings.”
• It attempts to examine:-
 Contemporary phenomenon in its real-
life context
 Boundaries between phenomenon and
context are not clearly evident
Methodological concerns by Objectivist
To make controlled
observations
Replicability
Generalizability
Reliance on Qualitative
Analysis

5. Conceptions of Objectivist Research?
5
Objectivist Framework’s Natural Science
Model revolves around:
 Theoretical propositions: How to
manage theoretical propositions?
 Hypothetic-Deductive Logic: Rules
for hypothetic-deductive logic?
 Fit for Four methodological
Concerns: Does it fit four “checks”?
 Open to being disproven
 Logically consistent
 Predictive as any rival theory
 Must not have been disproven yet
Hypothetico-
Deductive Logic
The Standard
Syllogism
Theory All men are mortal
Data Socrates is a man
Predictions Socrates is mortal
Testing Observation :
Socrates dies
Natural science model used to verify
theoretical proposition

6. Intersection of the Two Schools of Thoughts
“The Subjectivist Side of Kanter’s Case Study”
6
 Methods used by Kanter (1977) are familiar to both case and subjectivist
researcher (i.e: Conversations, Interviews, Group Discussions, observations,
documents examination, and informants)
 Researcher Observes in social world create and attach their own meaning to
world around (To explain the rational behind irrationality)
 Social sciences call for methods radically different from thoughts of Natural
sciences.
 Humans actions are based on internal values that they holds and external
circumstances that they experience
 Qualitative methods are more associated toward subjectivists (i.e:
ethnomethodology, phenomenology, and sociology)
 Organizational Circumstances at Industrial Level

7. Intersection of the Two Schools of Thoughts
“The Objectivist Side of Kanter’s Case Study”
7
 Extensive Literature Review of sociological, social psychological and
organizational behavior was extensively done.
 This subjectivist approach will provide basis to objectivist understanding.
 As per Schutz(1973) Subjectivist understanding “construct on the first level”
whereas for objectivist “constructs on second level”
 Results define how opportunity, power and relative numbers are significant
determinants in organization behaviour.
“How this case study fit the conceptions of Objectivist”
 Theoretical Propositions
 Framework of Hypothetico-Deductive Logic
 Good Fit

8. Intersection of the Two Schools of Thoughts
“The Objectivist Side of Kanter’s Case Study”
8
Hypothetico-Deductive
Logic
Kanter’s Case Study
Theoretical Propositions Theory Structure of opportunity, power, and
social composition of peer clusters
Initial Conditions Data Data about the men and women of
industrial supply corporation
Hypotheses of what should be observed Predictions 55 hypotheses about the actions the
men and women should show, if the
theory is true
Comparison to what is actually
observed
Testing Comparison to what is actually
observed
Kanter’s use of the natural science model in an organizational case study

9. Conducting a Case Study as a Natural Experiment
9
• Natural experiment falls inside the natural science model
 Incapable of doing some natural science laboratory experiment
 Natural experiment no different from natural science theories which
natural scientist test in laboratory experiment
• Drawback – Less convenient than the imposition of treatment and controls
in the laboratory
Resolve methodological concerns
• Replicability of experiment’s finding
• Generalizability by pursuing multiple testing
• Qualitative Natural Experiment

10. Relevance with Other Area’s
10
Area Article
MIS Lee, A. S. (1989). A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. MIS quarterly,
33-50.
Business Studies Halinen, A., & Törnroos, J. Å. (2005). Using case methods in the study of
contemporary business networks. Journal of business research, 58(9), 1285-
1297.
Marketing Chen, Y., Wang, Q., & Xie, J. (2011). Online social interactions: A natural
experiment on word of mouth versus observational learning. Journal of
marketing research, 48(2), 238-254.
Accounting / Finance
Gormley, T. A., Matsa, D. A., & Milbourn, T. (2013). CEO compensation and
corporate risk: Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Accounting and
Economics, 56(2-3), 79-101.

11. Suitability of Natural Experiment with Group Research Project
11
• The topic of our group research project is “The Role of Perceived Responsible Brand during
COVID-19 towards brand image and brand equity”
• We think experimental method could be adopted in our research as below reasons:-
 We could manipulate the stimuli (responsible vs irresponsible brand)
 It provides researchers with high level of control
 It could provide specific conclusions
 It allows cause and effect to be determined
• Example of similar study is “Does corporate social responsibility improve brands’ responsible and
active personality dimensions? An experimental investigation” by Tarabashkina et al. (2020).
• Analyzing responsible corporate identity in the hospitality sector: a case study by Martinez et al.
(2014).

12. References
12
Chen, Y., Wang, Q., & Xie, J. (2011). Online social interactions: A natural experiment on word of mouth
versus observational learning. Journal of marketing research, 48(2), 238-254.
Gormley, T. A., Matsa, D. A., & Milbourn, T. (2013). CEO compensation and corporate risk: Evidence
from a natural experiment. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 56(2-3), 79-101.
Halinen, A., & Törnroos, J. Å. (2005). Using case methods in the study of contemporary business
networks. Journal of business research, 58(9), 1285-1297.
Kanter, R. M. (1987). Men and women of the corporation revisited. Management Review, 76(3), 14.
Lee, A. S. (1989). A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. MIS quarterly, 33-50.
Martínez, P., & Del Bosque, I. R. (2014). Analyzing responsible corporate identity in the hospitality
sector: a case study. Tourism Culture & Communication, 14(3), 183-197.
Morey, N. C., & Luthans, F. (1984). An emic perspective and ethnoscience methods for organizational
research. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 27-36.
Schutz, A. (1962). Concept and theory formation in the social sciences. In Collected papers I (pp. 48-66).
Springer, Dordrecht.
Tarabashkina, L., Tarabashkina, O., Quester, P., & Soutar, G. N. (2020). Does corporate social
responsibility improve brands’ responsible and active personality dimensions? An experimental
investigation. Journal of Product & Brand Management.

13. 13
Thanks!
Any questions?