Are rigor and transparency enough? Review and future directions for case studies in technology and innovation Management

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle



  • Ziad Elsahn
  • Lisa Callagher
  • Kenneth Husted
  • Stefan Korber
  • Frank Siedlok

External departments

  • The University of Auckland


Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)309-328
JournalR&D Management
Issue number3
Early online date21 Apr 2020
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2020
Publication type

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle


It is crucial to assess how technology and innovation management (TIM) scholars use case‐based research. Our study provides a theoretical systematic review of qualitative case‐based articles published in 31 TIM journals from 2013 to 2018. Our analysis of 311 articles uncovers patterns regarding rigor (including case justification and selection), transparency (including data collection and analytical methods), and paradigmatic consistency and pluralism. Our findings show some evidence of emerging pluralism in how TIM researchers perform qualitative case studies, but also highlight some worrying trends: paradigmatic inconsistencies, lack of transparency, and over‐reliance on specific approaches, all of which affect the value of case study research. We provide methodological guidelines for improving the use of qualitative case research in TIM.

Download Title (Resource: downloads_chaqrt)

No data available