Case Study Methodology in Business Research: Relevance and Limitations

Author: L. Kareem (Independent Researcher)

Affiliation: Independent Researcher

Abstract

Case study methodology continues to be one of the most effective and intellectually significant methods in business research, as it enables scholars to examine intricate organisational realities within their contextual framework. A lot of the most important business questions aren't just about "what" happened, but also about "how" and "why" things happened over time. This includes things like strategy choices, internal politics, stakeholder relationships, institutional constraints, and market pressures. Case studies are particularly pertinent in the fields of management, tourism, and technology research, where results are contingent upon execution, legitimacy, and the interaction between local practices and global frameworks. But people often don't understand the method or use it in ways that make it less credible. People often worry about weak generalisation, selection bias, interview-driven storytelling, and limited replicability. This article gives an academic overview of the pros and cons of using case study methodology in business research. It is written in simple English that anyone can understand and follows the structure of a journal article. The theoretical foundation incorporates three frameworks that enhance case analysis and bolster rigour: Bourdieu’s theory of fields and capital (which elucidates power, legitimacy, and strategic behaviour), world-systems theory (which emphasises global inequality and structural limitations), and institutional isomorphism (which clarifies why organisations frequently emulate similar practices under coercive, mimetic, and normative influences). A practical method framework is suggested, encompassing case selection logic, boundary delineation, triangulation, process tracing, pattern recognition, and competitor explanation evaluation. The findings delineate the characteristics that differentiate credible case studies from mere descriptive narratives and provide actionable design principles in accordance with elevated publication standards. The article concludes that case study methodology is not a “soft” alternative to quantitative research; it is a rigorous strategy of inquiry when designed with discipline, transparency, and theory-guided claims.

Keywords

Case study research; qualitative methods; business methodology; theory building; institutional isomorphism; Bourdieu; world-systems theory; management research

Introduction

Organisations exist in the real world, where decisions are made with incomplete information, stakeholders disagree, and markets change faster than plans. Because of this, you can't use just one variable or a simple model to explain many business outcomes. Timing, leadership choices, employee skills, trust, rules, and competition all at once can all affect how well a business does. In tourism, reputation, safety perceptions, seasonal changes, community relations, and platform visibility can all affect performance. In technology, how well software works, how well it is governed, how ready the data is, how well it is trained, and how well it is accepted by the company all affect how widely it is used and how much of an impact it has.

Business researchers frequently encounter a disparity between easily measurable metrics and those of paramount significance in practical applications. Big datasets can show us that some patterns are common across many companies, but they don't always tell us how these patterns are made. Experiments can provide robust causal tests; however, they may also eliminate the contextual factors that influence organisational reality. Surveys record perceptions and correlations, but they might overlook process, power, and implementation specifics. This is why case study methodology remains a pivotal component in business academia.

A case study is more than just a long story about a business. It is a research strategy that looks into a phenomenon in its natural setting, especially when the lines between the phenomenon and its context are not clear. People often use case studies to learn about new things, improve or build on existing theories, look into how things work, and explain how things happen. These fields are shaped by many different interactions, not just one cause, so they are useful in management, tourism, and technology.

Case study research is often criticised at the same time. Some critics say it can't be used in other situations. Some people say that it is too subjective or that it relies too much on interviews and the researcher's own interpretation. When case studies don't say why a case was chosen, how data was collected, how analysis was done, or how conclusions were reached, reviewers often become suspicious. In the worst cases, the case study turns into a corporate profile with an academic format: lots of description but not much new information.

This article directly addresses those worries. It provides a substantive, publishable examination of case study methodology in business research: its ongoing relevance, its optimal applications, its inherent limitations, and the rigorous application by researchers. The article enhances the discussion by grounding case study interpretation in three theoretical frameworks—Bourdieu’s theory of capital and field, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism—that elucidate both differences and similarities among organisations. These viewpoints are not there just for show. They give you a framework for understanding and protect you from making naive conclusions, like the idea that one successful case is always the best way to do things.

Background: Theoretical Lenses That Strengthen Case Study Research

A good case study needs more than a clear topic and access to data. It needs a way to interpret what is observed. Theory does not reduce complexity; it gives complexity shape. In business case studies, theory helps the researcher decide what to pay attention to, what counts as a meaningful pattern, and how to connect local events to broader forces. The following three lenses are especially useful because they connect organizational behavior to power, legitimacy, and global structure—core themes in management, tourism, and technology.

1) Bourdieu’s Field Theory: Capital, Habitus, and Symbolic Power

Pierre Bourdieu’s work offers a practical way to understand organizations as actors embedded in “fields,” which are structured arenas of competition. In business, a field can be an industry (hospitality, fintech, higher education services), a professional domain (auditing, consulting, engineering), or even a platform ecosystem (app stores, booking platforms, ride-sharing networks). Fields are not neutral spaces. They contain hierarchies, unwritten rules, and dominant players who shape what is treated as credible or legitimate.

Bourdieu’s concept of capital is particularly relevant for business case studies. Organizations compete using different forms of capital:

• Economic capital: funding, assets, access to investment, ability to absorb losses

• Cultural capital: expertise, managerial knowledge, capabilities, quality systems, specialized skills

• Social capital: networks, partnerships, personal connections, stakeholder access

• Symbolic capital: reputation, legitimacy, brand prestige, trust, perceived quality

In many business contexts, symbolic capital can decide whether customers accept a service, whether regulators trust compliance claims, or whether partners agree to collaborate. A technology firm with strong technical capability may still fail in regulated markets if it cannot build symbolic capital. A tourism destination may improve service quality but struggle to recover if symbolic capital (trust and reputation) is damaged.

Bourdieu also emphasizes habitus—the internalized dispositions that shape how individuals perceive and act. In organizations, habitus affects how leaders interpret risk, how employees respond to change, and how teams understand “quality” or “innovation.” Habitus is often invisible in quantitative research but becomes visible through case evidence: meeting practices, language, informal norms, and decision routines.

How this helps case studies:

Bourdieu encourages researchers to treat organizational behavior as partly strategic and partly shaped by field structure and capital distribution. This supports richer explanations. Instead of saying, “the strategy failed because execution was weak,” a case study can ask: Who had legitimacy to lead? Which groups had symbolic power? What forms of capital were missing? How did habitus shape acceptance or resistance?

2) World-Systems Theory: Global Structure and Unequal Business Constraints

World-systems theory, closely associated with Immanuel Wallerstein, frames the world economy as a structured system characterized by unequal exchange and uneven development. The theory describes positions such as core, semi-periphery, and periphery, not as fixed labels but as relational positions with different levels of power, resource access, and control over value capture.

In business research, this lens matters because many organizations operate inside global systems they do not control: international standards, platform intermediaries, global supply chains, cross-border financial flows, and global reputational rankings (formal or informal). These global structures influence what organizations can realistically do.

For example:

• A technology firm in a resource-rich environment may adopt advanced governance and security systems because the infrastructure, talent market, and funding are available.

• A firm in a resource-constrained environment may depend on external vendors or imported standards, creating dependency and limiting autonomy.

• Tourism destinations may depend on external markets and intermediaries who shape demand, pricing, and the destination narrative.

How this helps case studies:

World-systems theory prevents overly universal conclusions. It reminds the researcher that a practice that succeeds in one structural position may not transfer easily to another. Case studies are well suited to document exactly how global structure becomes local constraint—through funding, talent availability, regulatory capacity, currency risk, or platform power. This produces business research that is both realistic and fair.

3) Institutional Isomorphism: Why Organizations Often Look Alike

Institutional theory highlights that organizations do not change only because it improves performance. Often, organizations change to appear legitimate—to be seen as modern, compliant, professional, and trustworthy. A classic concept is institutional isomorphism, which explains why organizations in the same field often become similar.

Three mechanisms are commonly recognized:

• Coercive isomorphism: driven by law, regulation, governance requirements, or powerful partners

• Mimetic isomorphism: imitation under uncertainty (copying what is seen as successful)

• Normative isomorphism: professional norms, education, and shared standards inside an occupation or field

In management, this is visible in the spread of standardized reporting, performance metrics, and governance structures. In tourism, it appears in the adoption of similar sustainability language and service quality frameworks. In technology, it appears in the adoption of similar cybersecurity practices, compliance models, and AI governance principles.

How this helps case studies:

Case studies can capture what institutional theory often predicts but large datasets may not show clearly: the gap between formal adoption and real practice. Organizations may adopt policies to satisfy stakeholders, but daily routines remain unchanged. A case study can show whether a practice is symbolic, substantive, or mixed—an important distinction for both theory and practice.

Method

This article provides a structured methodological synthesis and a practical design framework for business case studies. While it does not report a single empirical case, it is grounded in established case study research standards and common expectations in high-level business journals. The goal is to make the article directly usable for researchers preparing publishable case study work.

Defining the Case: What Is Being Studied?

A case study begins with a clear definition of the “case.” In business research, the case may be:

• an organization (firm, hotel group, startup, public agency)

• a program or initiative (digital transformation, restructuring, service redesign)

• a destination governance system (tourism recovery plan, branding campaign)

• a partnership or network (strategic alliance, innovation ecosystem)

• a crisis event (cyberattack response, reputational crisis, market shock)

A case is not defined by having interviews. It is defined by being a bounded system examined in depth and in context.

Setting Boundaries: The Discipline That Protects Rigor

Strong case studies specify boundaries early:

• Time period: Which years or phases are included?

• Scope: Which business unit, region, or project is included?

• Stakeholders: Whose perspectives are included and why?

• Context conditions: Which external forces (regulation, market shifts, platform changes) are treated as part of the case?

Boundary clarity prevents the study from expanding into an unmanageable narrative.

Research Questions: Where Case Studies Fit Best

Case studies are strongest for:

• “How” questions (implementation, coordination, change)

• “Why” questions (mechanisms, motivations, legitimacy dynamics)

• Process-focused inquiries (sequence, timing, decision points)They are especially useful when the phenomenon cannot be separated from context without losing meaning.

Designs: Single vs. Multiple, Holistic vs. Embedded

Common designs include:

• Single-case design: appropriate when the case is critical, unique, extreme, or revelatory

• Multiple-case design: appropriate when comparison strengthens logic through replication patterns

• Holistic design: one primary unit of analysis

• Embedded design: multiple units inside a single case (departments, stakeholder groups, projects)

Multiple-case research often improves analytic generalization, but a single-case design can be strong when selection logic is justified clearly.

Evidence and Triangulation

Case studies usually combine evidence types, such as:

• interviews (semi-structured, role-diverse informants)

• documents (policies, reports, meeting notes, internal memos)

• observation (meetings, service operations, decision routines)

• archival data (performance history, market data, timelines)

• digital traces (platform metrics, customer review patterns, audit trails)

Triangulation is not a buzzword. It is the practical act of cross-checking claims using different sources and perspectives.

Analysis Procedures That Raise Credibility

To avoid becoming a “story,” case studies typically benefit from explicit analytical techniques:

• Pattern matching: compare observed patterns to theory-based expectations

• Explanation building: refine explanation iteratively and transparently

• Process tracing: map causal mechanisms and sequences over time

• Rival explanation testing: evaluate alternative interpretations

• Cross-case synthesis: compare cases systematically (for multiple-case designs)

Quality Criteria

Credible case studies address four quality dimensions:

• Construct validity: clear concepts supported by evidence

• Internal validity: plausible causal logic (especially in explanatory cases)

• External validity: analytic generalization to theory (not statistical claims)

• Reliability: transparent procedures and chain of evidence

Analysis: Why Case Studies Are Highly Relevant in Business Research

Case study methodology persists because it addresses a real research problem: business reality is messy, and the most important explanations often require context. The relevance of case studies can be seen in at least five areas.

1) Understanding Implementation, Not Just Strategy

Business research often evaluates strategies as if organizations simply “apply” them. In reality, implementation is a social process that involves:

• resource allocation decisions

• negotiation between departments

• training and skill development

• resistance and sense-making

• performance measurement and accountability

• leadership credibility and trust

Case studies can reveal why the same strategic template produces different outcomes across contexts. Bourdieu’s lens is useful here because it directs attention to symbolic capital: Who is trusted? Who can define the meaning of “success”? Who controls the narrative? Institutional theory helps identify whether implementation is substantive or symbolic. World-systems theory helps explain resource and capability constraints that shape what implementation is even possible.

2) Capturing Organizational Power, Politics, and Legitimacy

Many key business decisions are political in the sense that groups compete for resources, status, and influence. Case studies can document how legitimacy is built, threatened, or repaired. This matters in:

• mergers and acquisitions

• restructuring

• leadership succession

• crisis response

• major technology adoption programs

Bourdieu provides language for this reality without reducing it to “bad behavior.” Power and symbolic capital are normal forces in organizational fields. Case studies can show how these forces shape outcomes.

3) Explaining Convergence and Copying in Business Practice

Organizations often adopt similar practices, especially when uncertainty is high. Institutional isomorphism helps explain why: under pressure, organizations copy what looks legitimate. Case studies allow researchers to trace:

• how imitation decisions were made

• which “model organizations” were referenced

• what was adopted formally versus implemented in practice

• whether legitimacy improved and at what cost

This is especially relevant in technology governance (security, privacy, AI oversight) and tourism policy (safety standards, sustainability language) where legitimacy pressures are strong.

4) Making Sense of Emerging Topics With Limited Data

In fast-moving areas—AI governance, platform-based competition, cybersecurity incidents, digital transformation—large datasets may not exist, may be proprietary, or may not capture internal dynamics. Case studies can be used to:

• clarify constructs

• identify mechanisms

• build early-stage theory

• generate hypotheses for later quantitative research

This is one of the most constructive uses of case studies: not competing with quantitative methods, but preparing the conceptual ground for stronger measurement later.

5) Connecting Local Practice to Global Structure

World-systems theory highlights that organizational options are shaped by global structure. Case studies can reveal how global pressures are experienced locally through:

• dependency on external suppliers and standards

• platform power in tourism and technology markets

• unequal access to capital and talent

• cross-border reputational dynamics

This prevents simplistic conclusions like “they should just adopt best practice.” Case studies can show what best practice requires in resources, institutional support, and symbolic legitimacy—and whether those conditions exist.

Analysis: Limitations and Where Case Studies Commonly Go Wrong

Case studies can produce high-quality knowledge, but they can also fail in predictable ways. Most limitations come from weak design and reporting rather than from the method itself.

1) Generalization Problems: The Risk of Overreach

Case studies do not usually support statistical generalization. Their strength lies in analytic generalization—linking evidence to theory. The limitation appears when researchers treat one case as representing a population or claim universal truth from a single example. Strong case studies avoid overreach by stating boundary conditions: where the explanation applies and where it likely does not.

2) Selection Bias and “Access-Driven” Research

A frequent weakness is choosing a case simply because it is convenient or because access was granted. Access is important, but it is not a sampling logic. Publishable case studies typically justify case choice using theoretical reasoning: critical case, deviant case, extreme case, typical case, or polar types for comparison.

3) Interview Dependence and Social Desirability

Business interviews can be highly filtered. Respondents may protect reputation, hide mistakes, or rationalize decisions after the fact. If a study relies only on interviews, it risks becoming a polished organizational narrative. Triangulation is the primary safeguard: documents, timelines, digital traces, observation, and role-diverse informants help test consistency.

4) Weak Causal Logic

Some case studies jump from events to conclusions without showing mechanisms. The result is “post-hoc storytelling.” Strong case studies treat causality carefully: they map sequences, identify decision points, examine alternatives, and consider rival explanations.

5) Reliability and Transparency Challenges

Reviewers often reject case studies not because the story is uninteresting, but because the method is unclear. Case researchers can address this by describing:

• how evidence was collected

• how informants were selected

• how analysis was performed

• how themes were developed

• how conclusions were derived from evidence

A clear chain of evidence increases trust and allows evaluation.

6) The Narrative Trap

Case studies naturally produce rich narrative. The limitation appears when narrative replaces analysis. A strong academic case study must answer: What does this case teach beyond itself? What mechanism or theoretical refinement does it offer? If the case only works because the organization is famous or the story is dramatic, the academic contribution is weak.

7) Ethical Constraints

Case studies often involve confidential information, personal accounts, and reputational risk. Ethical limitations may restrict what can be disclosed. Instead of ignoring this, a strong study explains how confidentiality was handled and what evidence could not be presented.

Findings: Practical Principles for Scopus-Level Case Study Rigor

This section translates the analysis into practical findings that researchers can apply directly when writing case studies for business journals.

Finding 1: Boundaries are the foundation of credibility

High-quality case studies clearly define what is inside the study and what is outside. This improves focus and prevents claims from becoming vague. It also makes the study easier to evaluate.

Finding 2: Case selection must be explained as a theoretical choice

A publishable case study explains why the case matters: what it reveals, what it tests, or what it challenges. This selection logic is part of the contribution, not an administrative detail.

Finding 3: Triangulation protects against “single-story” bias

Triangulation should be purposeful: it tests claims, it checks inconsistencies, and it strengthens the chain of evidence. The most convincing case studies show how multiple sources support the same mechanism.

Finding 4: Theory should guide what the researcher looks for

Using Bourdieu, the researcher can ask: What kinds of capital shaped outcomes? Who had symbolic legitimacy? How did habitus influence responses?Using world-systems theory, the researcher can ask: What external dependencies shaped options? How did global positioning affect resource access?Using institutional theory, the researcher can ask: Was adoption driven by coercion, imitation, or professional norms? Was it symbolic or substantive?

Finding 5: Mechanisms matter more than outcomes

Case study contributions are strongest when they explain how outcomes were produced. A simple performance result is less useful than a clear mechanism that can inform theory and future research.

Finding 6: Rival explanations increase the credibility of conclusions

Strong case studies treat alternative explanations as part of the research process, not as a threat. This practice shows analytical maturity and strengthens internal validity.

Finding 7: Transparency in analysis is a publishability requirement

High-level journals increasingly expect clarity about how themes were developed and how evidence supports claims. Researchers do not need to share confidential data, but they should explain their procedures.

Finding 8: Reflexivity is part of rigor

Rather than pretending neutrality, strong case researchers acknowledge their role, access conditions, and potential influence—then describe the safeguards used (triangulation, member checks where appropriate, role-diverse interviews, and evidence documentation).

Finding 9: Ethical integrity is a methodological quality dimension

Ethics is not separate from rigor. In business case studies, ethical handling of consent, confidentiality, and harm avoidance directly affects reliability and trust.

Conclusion

Case study methodology is indispensable in business research, as numerous significant organisational phenomena cannot be comprehended without contextualisation. Research in management, tourism, and technology frequently addresses dynamic change, stakeholder coordination, legitimacy pressures, and structural constraints. Case studies are particularly effective in elucidating the mechanisms and rationale behind the interactions of these forces over time to yield specific outcomes. The method has some real but manageable problems. Case studies often lose credibility because they have weak generalisations, selection bias, interview dependence, narrative-only reporting, and unclear causal claims. These shortcomings are not inherent to the methodology; rather, they stem from issues of design and transparency. When case studies are structured with rigorous boundaries, theory-driven selection criteria, triangulation, mechanism-oriented analysis, competing explanation evaluation, and transparent chain-of-evidence documentation, they can fulfil stringent academic criteria. Bourdieu's field theory aids researchers in analysing power and legitimacy via various forms of capital and habitus. World-systems theory reminds researchers that the way organisations work is affected by unequal global structures and dependencies. Institutional isomorphism elucidates the tendency of organisations to adopt similar practices for legitimacy rather than solely for efficiency. These lenses work together to make explanations stronger and keep researchers from coming to simple "one-size-fits-all" conclusions. In summary, case study methodology is not an inferior alternative to quantitative research. It is a strict research method that has its own logic and advantages. When used carefully, it gives us the kind of knowledge that both business research and business practice need: realistic explanations of how organisations really work.

Hashtags

#CaseStudyMethodology #BusinessResearch #ManagementMethods #QualitativeResearch #InstitutionalIsomorphism #TourismAndHospitalityResearch #TechnologyManagement

References

• Bourdieu, P., 1986. The forms of capital. In: J.G. Richardson, ed. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press, pp. 241–258.

• Bourdieu, P., 1990. The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

• Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L., 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

• DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), pp. 147–160.https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101

• Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), pp. 532–550.https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385

• Flyvbjerg, B., 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), pp. 219–245.https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363

• Gehman, J., Glaser, V., Eisenhardt, K.M., Gioia, D.A., Langley, A. and Corley, K.G., 2022. Finding theory–method fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches. Academy of Management Annals, 16(1), pp. 1–35.https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2020.0050

• Gerring, J., 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G. and Hamilton, A.L., 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), pp. 15–31.https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151

• Langley, A., 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), pp. 691–710.https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2553248

• Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., 2021. Perspectives on process studies: Approaches and contributions. Academy of Management Annals, 15(2), pp. 1–33.https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2019.0126

• Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B., 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), pp. 340–363.https://doi.org/10.1086/226550

• Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. and Saldaña, J., 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

• Morgan, G. and Ravasi, D., 2021. Institutional theory and the new realities of organization: Methodological implications for qualitative research. Organization Studies, 42(9), pp. 1313–1336.https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620982137

• Ridder, H.-G., 2020. Case Study Research: Approaches, Methods, Contribution to Theory. Munich: Rainer Hampp Verlag.

• Stake, R.E., 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

• Strauss, A. and Corbin, J., 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

• Vuori, T.O. and Huy, Q.N., 2022. Distributed attention and shared emotions in organizational change: A qualitative process study. Academy of Management Journal, 65(3), pp. 820–851.https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2019.1220

• Wallerstein, I., 2004. World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Durham: Duke University Press.

• Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E. and Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E., 2011. Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), pp. 740–762.https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.55

• Yin, R.K., 2018. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.