Diferencia entre revisiones de «Eisenhardt, K. 1989.»
(Sumario) |
|||
| Línea 2: | Línea 2: | ||
==Sumario (Abstract)== | ==Sumario (Abstract)== | ||
[http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/258557.pdf Tomado de publicación online]<br> | [http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/258557.pdf Tomado de publicación online]<br> | ||
| − | This paper describes the process of inducting theory using case | + | This paper describes the process of inducting theory using case studies-from specifying the research questions to reaching closure. Some features of the process, such as problem definition and construct validation, are similar to hypothesis-testing research. Others, such as within-case analysis and replication logic, are unique to the inductive, case-oriented process. Overall, the process described here is highly iterative and tightly linked to data. This research approach is especially appropriate in new topic areas. The resultant theory is often novel, testable, and empirically valid. Finally, framebreaking insights, the tests of good theory (e.g., parsimony, logical coherence), and convincing grounding in the evidence are the key criteria for evaluating this type of research. |
[[categoría:bibliografía]] | [[categoría:bibliografía]] | ||
Revisión actual del 03:55 1 mar 2017
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/258557
Sumario (Abstract)
Tomado de publicación online
This paper describes the process of inducting theory using case studies-from specifying the research questions to reaching closure. Some features of the process, such as problem definition and construct validation, are similar to hypothesis-testing research. Others, such as within-case analysis and replication logic, are unique to the inductive, case-oriented process. Overall, the process described here is highly iterative and tightly linked to data. This research approach is especially appropriate in new topic areas. The resultant theory is often novel, testable, and empirically valid. Finally, framebreaking insights, the tests of good theory (e.g., parsimony, logical coherence), and convincing grounding in the evidence are the key criteria for evaluating this type of research.
