Case Study Methodology in Business Research: Relevance and Limitations

Author: L.Kareem

Affiliation: Independent Researcher

Abstract

Case study methodology remains one of the most widely used approaches in business research because it helps scholars examine complex, real-world phenomena in their natural contexts. It is especially valuable when the research problem involves multiple interacting factors—such as digital transformation, crisis management, service quality in tourism, supply-chain disruptions, sustainability transitions, or institutional change. Yet the same features that make case studies attractive also create frequent criticisms: limited generalizability, risks of researcher bias, weak transparency in data analysis, and confusion between “case study” as a teaching tool versus “case study” as a research strategy. This article explains the relevance and limitations of case study methodology in business research using simple, human-readable language but a rigorous journal structure. The Background section builds a theoretical lens based on (1) Bourdieu’s field theory and forms of capital, (2) world-systems theory and core–periphery dynamics, and (3) institutional isomorphism and legitimacy pressures. The Method outlines a practical, step-by-step research design suitable for single-case, multiple-case, and embedded case study designs, emphasizing triangulation, case boundaries, analytic generalization, and quality criteria. The Analysis discusses when case studies produce strong theory contributions and when they fail, including typical threats to credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. The Findings synthesize actionable guidance for researchers: how to select cases, document evidence, handle causality, and write up results with adequate rigor. The article concludes that case studies are not a “weaker” method; they are a different method, best suited to certain questions and requiring disciplined design, reflexivity, and transparent reporting.

Keywords: case study research; business methodology; qualitative research; theory building; institutional theory; tourism research; management research

Introduction

Business research often faces a basic problem: organizations do not operate in laboratories. They operate in markets, cultures, legal systems, professional networks, supply chains, and digital platforms—often all at once. Managers make decisions under uncertainty, with incomplete information, conflicting goals, and pressures from stakeholders. Because of this complexity, researchers frequently need a method that can capture “how” and “why” processes unfold in real settings, not only “what” variables correlate.

Case study methodology is designed for that purpose. A research case study is not simply a story about one firm. It is a systematic research strategy that investigates a phenomenon within its context, using multiple sources of evidence and a clear chain of reasoning from research question to conclusion. In business fields—management, entrepreneurship, tourism, marketing, information systems, operations, and strategy—case studies are used for theory building, theory testing, process tracing, and explaining mechanisms that surveys or experiments struggle to observe.

At the same time, case study research attracts criticism. Reviewers may say: “It is just one example,” “It cannot be generalized,” or “It is too subjective.” Sometimes these criticisms are valid—many case study projects are poorly designed, lack transparent analysis, or do not justify why the selected case is theoretically meaningful. Other times, the criticism comes from misunderstanding: generalization in case studies is usually analytic (to theory), not statistical (to a population). Another common weakness is that researchers may use the label “case study” while actually conducting informal interviews or writing descriptive reports without rigorous logic.

This article addresses both sides: why case study methodology remains relevant, and where its limitations are real and must be managed. To strengthen the discussion, the article uses three theoretical perspectives that help explain why case studies are often necessary in business research:

1. Bourdieu’s theory of fields and capital: organizations compete within fields where power, reputation, networks, and symbolic recognition matter.

2. World-systems theory: firms are embedded in global hierarchies; strategies and constraints differ across core, semi-periphery, and periphery contexts.

3. Institutional isomorphism: organizations become similar due to coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures, shaping practices beyond pure efficiency.

Together, these theories show why context is not “noise,” but often the main explanation. That is precisely where case studies are strongest.

Background: Why Theory Matters for Case Studies

1) Bourdieu: Field, Habitus, and Capital in Business Contexts

Bourdieu’s framework explains social life through fields (structured spaces of competition), capital (resources that provide advantage), and habitus (internalized dispositions that shape action). In business research, this lens helps explain why firms may act in ways that look irrational from a simple profit-maximization model.

For example, two tourism firms may face the same market demand, but one wins because it has stronger social capital (relationships with regulators and travel platforms), stronger cultural capital (service knowledge, multilingual staff, design taste), or stronger symbolic capital (brand prestige and legitimacy). These forms of capital are deeply contextual; they are built historically through reputation, networks, and recognition. A case study is often the best way to see how capital accumulates and converts—for instance, how symbolic capital (prestige) becomes economic capital (pricing power), or how social capital (connections) reduces risk.

Case studies also help reveal habitus—the routines, assumptions, and professional “common sense” that influence decisions. In technology adoption, for example, managers may resist a new system not because the system is ineffective, but because it threatens identity, expertise, or status. These dynamics are difficult to capture through surveys alone because respondents may not consciously report them, or may present socially desirable answers.

2) World-Systems Theory: Core–Periphery Differences and Business Reality

World-systems theory emphasizes that economic activity is globally structured. Firms in “core” economies often have advantages in finance, technology, logistics, and standard-setting, while firms in peripheral contexts may face higher costs of capital, weaker infrastructure, and stronger dependence on external markets. In tourism and technology especially, platform power and global standards can shape what is possible locally.

In business research, case studies are valuable for understanding how these global hierarchies translate into organizational constraints and strategies. For example, a tourism SME in a peripheral region may depend heavily on global booking platforms, foreign currency inflows, and international quality expectations, while having limited influence over the rules. A case study can examine how such firms cope: through niche branding, alliances, diaspora networks, or selective compliance with standards.

World-systems theory reminds researchers that a “best practice” in one context may be unrealistic in another. Case studies therefore help avoid false universal claims. They also help reveal how organizations negotiate global pressures—often through adaptation, hybridization, or resistance.

3) Institutional Isomorphism: Why Organizations Copy Each Other

Institutional theory argues that organizations often pursue legitimacy as much as efficiency. DiMaggio and Powell famously described three mechanisms of isomorphism:

• Coercive pressures (laws, regulations, funding requirements, platform rules)

• Mimetic pressures (imitation under uncertainty: copying successful peers)

• Normative pressures (professional standards, education, certifications, shared norms)

In many business settings—quality management, sustainability reporting, hotel rating systems, data privacy compliance, ESG disclosure, ISO-type standards—organizations adopt similar practices because stakeholders expect them. A case study is well suited to tracing how these pressures operate over time, and how organizational actors interpret them.

For instance, firms may adopt sustainability language in annual reports because investors demand it (coercive), because competitors do it (mimetic), and because consultants and professional networks promote it (normative). Case study research can examine whether such adoption is substantive (changing processes) or symbolic (changing documents), and under what conditions “decoupling” occurs—when formal policies do not match actual practices.

Why These Theories Fit Case Study Methodology

All three perspectives share a core message: context and meaning are central. They focus on power, legitimacy, history, and global structure—factors that are often invisible in purely variable-based models. Case studies can therefore contribute by explaining mechanisms and processes rather than only measuring associations.

Method

This article is an academic methodological synthesis (a structured conceptual review) with an applied research protocol. It integrates established methodological guidance with recent discussions on rigor and reporting. The goal is not to produce new empirical results about one company, but to provide a research-ready framework that scholars can apply to business case studies.

1) Research Questions for a Methodology Article

A methodology-focused case study article typically addresses questions such as:

• When is case study methodology appropriate in business research?

• What counts as strong evidence and analysis in case studies?

• How can researchers manage limitations (bias, generalization, and validity threats)?

• How can theory (Bourdieu/world-systems/isomorphism) strengthen the design?

2) Design Choices

Case study research design usually involves the following decisions:

a) Case definition and boundariesA “case” can be an organization, a project, a policy implementation, a crisis episode, a partnership network, a platform ecosystem, or a transformation process. Clear boundaries are essential: time period, location, actors, and phenomenon.

b) Single-case vs multiple-case designs

• Single-case designs fit situations where the case is critical, unique, extreme, or revelatory (e.g., a rare crisis response, a pioneering technology rollout, or a major institutional change).

• Multiple-case designs support replication logic: researchers compare cases to see whether patterns repeat or differ.

c) Embedded unitsA case may include sub-units (departments, locations, stakeholder groups). Embedded designs increase detail but also increase complexity; researchers must avoid losing the “case-level” logic.

3) Data Sources and Triangulation

Rigorous case studies use multiple sources, for example:

• Semi-structured interviews (leaders, employees, partners, regulators, customers)

• Documents (policies, meeting minutes, reports, training materials)

• Archival data (performance metrics, transaction logs, complaint records)

• Observations (service encounters, workflow, project meetings)

• Media and public records (industry reports, regulations, court decisions—when relevant)

Triangulation is not a buzzword; it is a discipline. It means comparing evidence across sources, looking for convergence and meaningful contradictions.

4) Analysis Strategy

Common analysis techniques include:

• Pattern matching (comparing empirical patterns to theoretical expectations)

• Explanation building (iteratively refining causal explanations)

• Process tracing (identifying sequences, turning points, mechanisms)

• Cross-case comparison (replication logic across cases)

• Coding and thematic analysis (systematically organizing qualitative data)

• Temporal bracketing (structuring data into phases: before/during/after)

5) Quality Criteria and Ethics

High-quality case studies manage four key criteria:

• Credibility: Are interpretations well supported by evidence?

• Transferability: Is the context described so readers can judge applicability?

• Dependability: Is the process documented so others can understand how results were produced?

• Confirmability: Are conclusions grounded in data, not only the researcher’s preferences?

Ethics matter because case studies often involve sensitive organizational information. Researchers should protect participants, handle confidentiality carefully, and avoid harm—especially when power differences exist between researcher and participant.

Analysis: Relevance and Limitations

A) Why Case Studies Are Highly Relevant in Business Research

1) They explain mechanisms, not only correlations

Many business phenomena involve “black boxes.” Surveys may show that digital capability correlates with performance, but not how capability is built, why it fails, or which conditions matter. Case studies can trace mechanisms: decisions, conflicts, learning, and unintended consequences.

2) They capture context where strategy actually happens

Strategies are implemented through people, routines, budgets, politics, and constraints. A case study can capture the lived reality of strategy execution: delays, negotiation, resistance, informal workarounds, and culture.

3) They support theory building in emerging fields

In fast-changing areas—AI governance, platform tourism, remote work control systems, sustainability measurement—variables and constructs may not yet be stable. Case studies help researchers discover categories, refine concepts, and propose new theoretical relationships.

4) They reveal power and legitimacy dynamics (theoretical lens advantage)

Using Bourdieu, researchers can examine how different forms of capital influence competitive outcomes. Using world-systems theory, they can analyze global constraints and dependency. Using institutional isomorphism, they can explain why organizations adopt similar practices despite different efficiency needs.

5) They are valuable in tourism and service management

Tourism businesses face complex stakeholder environments: destination authorities, local communities, international visitors, intermediaries, and platform rules. Service quality, experience design, and reputation systems are contextual. Case studies can examine how hotels, tour operators, and destination organizations adapt to crises, digital platforms, and sustainability demands.

B) The Main Limitations of Case Study Methodology

Limitations are not flaws; they are risks that must be actively managed.

1) Generalization challenges

A case study does not usually allow statistical generalization to a population. However, it can enable analytic generalization: refining theory and explaining mechanisms that may apply across contexts under specified conditions. The limitation becomes serious when researchers make broad claims without specifying scope conditions.

How to manage it:

• State the theory clearly and show how the case contributes to it.

• Define scope: where findings are likely to apply, and where they may not.

• Use replication logic in multiple-case designs when possible.

2) Selection bias and “successful case” temptation

Researchers may choose a famous firm, a successful transformation, or an accessible partner organization. That can distort findings because failures may be hidden.

How to manage it:

• Justify case selection using theoretical criteria (critical, typical, extreme, deviant).

• Consider including “negative” or contrasting cases (failed implementations, resistance outcomes).

• Be transparent about access constraints.

3) Researcher subjectivity and confirmation bias

Because qualitative analysis involves interpretation, researchers may unconsciously favor evidence that fits their expectations.

How to manage it:

• Use explicit coding procedures and audit trails.

• Search systematically for disconfirming evidence.

• Use member reflection carefully (not as “approval,” but as a check for misunderstanding).

• Practice reflexivity: document how the researcher’s position shapes interpretation.

4) Weak transparency in analysis (the “black box write-up”)

A common reason reviewers reject case studies is unclear analysis: lots of quotes, little logic; or narrative without method.

How to manage it:

• Describe steps: coding, pattern matching, process tracing, and how themes were built.

• Show evidence structure: data → first-order concepts → second-order themes → theoretical dimensions.

• Provide clear tables or structured summaries (even without external appendices).

5) Time and resource intensity

Case study research often requires prolonged engagement, multiple interviews, and extensive document collection.

How to manage it:

• Use focused research questions.

• Define boundaries and timeframes early.

• Plan data collection in phases, prioritizing the most informative sources.

6) Risk of confusing “teaching case” with “research case”

Teaching cases are written for learning and discussion; they may simplify or dramatize events. Research case studies require systematic evidence and methodological rigor.

How to manage it:

• Use research protocols, not only storytelling.

• Distinguish clearly between empirical evidence and interpretation.

• Avoid presenting marketing narratives as data.

C) What the Three Theories Reveal About Limitations

Each theoretical lens also warns about specific methodological traps:

• Bourdieu lens: Researchers may over-focus on visible economic outcomes and miss symbolic and social capital. A case study that ignores power relations can misinterpret “success” as pure efficiency.

• World-systems lens: Researchers may wrongly treat practices in core economies as universal. Without attention to global hierarchy, a case study can produce misleading prescriptions.

• Institutional lens: Researchers may accept formal policies at face value and miss decoupling. Case studies must examine both documents and actual practices.

Findings: Practical Guidance for Scopus-Level Rigor

This section summarizes concrete “best-practice findings” for doing strong case study research in business.

Finding 1: Strong case studies begin with a sharp “how/why” question and a theory target

A case study becomes rigorous when it is not only descriptive, but explanatory. The research question should push toward mechanism: How does institutional pressure reshape strategy? Why do some firms convert symbolic capital into market advantage while others fail? How do platform rules affect tourism SMEs in semi-peripheral contexts?

Finding 2: Case boundaries and unit of analysis must be explicit

Researchers should define:

• What is the case (organization, project, network, episode)?

• What is the time period?

• Which actors are included or excluded?

• What counts as evidence of the phenomenon?

Clear boundaries prevent “endless case” problems where the study grows without control.

Finding 3: Case selection must be theory-driven, not convenience-driven

High-quality studies justify why the case is meaningful:

• Critical case: tests a strong theoretical claim under demanding conditions

• Typical case: represents common conditions for a phenomenon

• Extreme or deviant case: reveals mechanisms more clearly due to intensity

• Revelatory case: provides access to a rarely observed process

Finding 4: Triangulation must include contradictions, not only confirmations

A mature case study does not hide tensions. If interviews and documents disagree, that is often where the real mechanism is. For example, policy documents may claim sustainability integration while operational data shows unchanged routines—an institutional decoupling pattern.

Finding 5: Analysis should show an evidence chain from data to theory

Readers should be able to follow the logic:

• What was observed (data excerpts, events, metrics)?

• How was it coded or categorized?

• How do categories connect to theory (Bourdieu/world-systems/isomorphism)?

• What alternative explanations were considered?

Finding 6: Generalization should be analytic and conditional

Instead of claiming “this is true for all firms,” researchers should say:

• “This mechanism is likely under conditions X and Y.”

• “In contexts with strong coercive regulation, mimetic pressures intensify.”

• “Symbolic capital is more convertible when field gatekeepers recognize it.”

This is how case studies contribute to theory while respecting their limits.

Finding 7: The write-up should combine narrative clarity with methodological discipline

A Scopus-level case study is readable, but it is also auditable. The best papers combine:

• A clear storyline (what happened, and why it matters)

• Transparent methods (how evidence was collected and analyzed)

• A theoretical contribution (what we now understand better)

Conclusion

Case study methodology remains highly relevant in business research because business phenomena are contextual, dynamic, and shaped by power and legitimacy as much as by efficiency. Case studies are particularly valuable for examining mechanisms in management, tourism, and technology-related transformations where standard variables may not capture the reality of decision-making and implementation.

However, case studies have real limitations: challenges of generalization, risks of bias, time intensity, and the frequent problem of weak transparency in analysis. These limitations are not reasons to avoid the method; they are reasons to design case studies with discipline. By grounding the study in a clear theoretical lens—such as Bourdieu’s field theory, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism—researchers can turn context into explanation rather than treating it as uncontrolled complexity.

The central message is simple: case studies are not “easy qualitative work.” They are demanding research designs that require strong case boundaries, careful triangulation, transparent analysis, and honest claims about scope. When executed with rigor, case study methodology can produce some of the most influential and practically meaningful contributions in business scholarship.

#CaseStudyResearch #BusinessResearch #ManagementMethods #TourismResearch #QualitativeMethodology #InstitutionalTheory #ResearchDesign

References

Annamalah, S. (2025). Exploring the relevance and rigour of case study research in business contexts. Journal of Sustainability Research.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.

Glette, M. K., & Wiig, S. (2022). The headaches of case study research: Emerging challenges and possible ways out of the pain. The Qualitative Report.

Powell, W. W. (2023). The iron cage redux: Looking back and forward. Research in the Sociology of Organizations.

Ridder, H.-G. (2017). The theory contribution of case study research designs. Business Research, 10(2), 281–305.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. SAGE.

Tsang, E. W. K. (2014). Generalizing from research findings: The merits of case studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 369–383.

Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Duke University Press.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th ed.). SAGE.

Zainal, Z. (2007). Case study as a research method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan, 9, 1–6.