See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263620395

Using the Case Survey Method for Synthesizing Case Study Evidence in
Information Systems Research Completed Research Paper

Conference Paper · August 2013

CITATIONS READS

10 1,455

3 authors, including:

Marlen Jurisch Helmut Krcmar

Technische Universität München Technische Universität München
29 PUBLICATIONS   336 CITATIONS    1,135 PUBLICATIONS   11,048 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

THESEUS / TEXO View project

DSR Methodology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marlen Jurisch on 04 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Jurisch et al. Case Survey Method for Information Systems Research

Using the Case Survey Method for Synthesizing Case

Study Evidence in Information Systems Research
Completed Research Paper

Marlen C. Jurisch Petra Wolf

Technische Universität München Technische Universität München
[email protected] [email protected]
Helmut Krcmar
Technische Universität München
[email protected]

ABSTRACT

A common characteristic of the IS discipline is that the bulk of the empirical evidence is embodied in case studies. However,
the ever-growing body of case based evidence also constitutes a major challenge to the IS discipline. Although each case
study may provide rich insights into specific phenomena, it is difficult to generalize on the basis of single-N or small-N case
studies. What IS research would benefit from is a method that allows for the quantitative inquiry of the vast amount of
primarily qualitative case studies. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the case survey method as new mode of inquiry to
supplement the rich repertoire of IS review methods. Therefore, we show how the case survey method is embedded in the
landscape of review methods used in IS research and what its principal stages, techniques, limitations and potentials are.

Keywords

Case survey, meta-analysis, case study research, methodologies

INTRODUCTION
A common characteristic of the information systems (IS) discipline is that the bulk of the empirical evidence is embodied in
case studies (Alavi & Carlson, 1992). However, the ever-growing body of case based evidence constitutes a major challenge
to the IS discipline. Although each case study may provide rich insights into specific phenomena, it is difficult to generalize
on the basis of single-N or small-N case studies (Darke & Shanks, 1998; Newig & Fritsch, 2009). Large-N case studies
would be a better choice, but due to high complexity case studies are rarely framed as large-N studies (Larsson, 1993;
Piekkari & Welch, 2011). The main crux is not that IS research is lacking knowledge but rather that this knowledge lies
distributed over countless single-N and small-N case studies. IS research has progressed to the point that there is a need for
identifying the ‘cement that glues’ these unique case studies (Stall-Meadows & Hyle, 2010).
The case survey method presents a powerful approach for identifying and statistically testing patterns across case studies
(Larsson, 1993; Lucas, 1974). Case surveys draw on the richness of numerous case studies and therefore allow for wider
generalizations than single-N and small-N case studies (Larsson, 1993). The bulk of IS case studies presents a rich pool of
relevant empirical findings (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Myers & Avison, 1997) whose “individually limited scientific
contributions can be enhanced through systematic analysis of patterns across cases” (Larsson, 1993). The case survey method
holds the following four potentials for IS research: (1) allows IS researchers to tap the vast experiences enclosed in IS case
studies, (2) provides an approach for synthesizing qualitative data into quantitative results, (3) helps in answering some basic
questions in IS research and (4) supports to establish summative validity for some of the theories developed or extended in IS
case studies.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a brief summary of the various review methods used in IS research for
synthesizing data across research studies and shows how the case survey method fits into this landscape. Section 3 specifies
the stages and techniques of the case survey method. In section 5, we discuss the limitations and in section 5 its potentials for
IS research.

Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois, August 15-17, 2013. 1
Jurisch et al. Case Survey Method for Information Systems Research

METHODS USED IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS FOR SYNTHESIZING DATA ACROSS RESEARCH STUDIES
Researchers have a number of methods at their disposal for synthesizing data across research studies (King, 2005). These
review methods allow for the aggregation of existing research findings with respect to their historical content and the analysis
of contradictions that might exist between the primary studies (Rumrill & Fitzgerald, 2001). To provide an overview, we
compiled a profile of the various qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods used in IS research to synthesize data across
studies (see figure 1).

(Statistical)
Vote Counting Meta-Analysis
Quantitative

Other review
Stylized Facts
Data 2 3 methods
Sources 1 4 Focus of this
paper
Qualitative Content
Analysis
Case Survey
Qualitative

Descriptive
Narrative Analysis Content Analysis

Qualitative Quantitative
Type of
Results

Figure 1. Profile of Review Methods

The first quadrant comprises purely qualitative methods such as the qualitative content analysis and the narrative review
method. Even if both methods deal with qualitative data analysis and complement each other to a certain degree, they still
differ substantially (Smith, 2000). Narrative analysis refers to a family of approaches that focus on the study of diverse
kinds of oral, written, filmed or photographed accounts of events, stories and actions (Kohler Riessman, 2005; Smith, 2000).
Qualitative content analysis is a “research technique used to extract desired information from a body of material by
systematically identifying characteristics of the material” (Smith, 2000). The researcher seeks to identify structures and
patterned regularities in the material in order to draw replicable and valid inferences on the basis of these regularities
(Krippendorf, 1980; Myers & Avison, 1997). Next to the (statistical) meta-analysis, the content analysis presents one of the
most commonly used review methods in IS research, which is often used in conjunction with case studies or other mixed-
method designs (i.e., Levina & Ross, 2003). The second quadrant contains the vote counting method which draws qualitative
inferences on the basis of quantitative data. Although conceptually simple, conventional vote counting has some serious
drawbacks (Stanley, 2001). In IS research vote counting has been primarily employed to develop quantitatively synthesized
conclusions from experiments (Laitenberger, El Emam, & Habrich, 2001). We placed the stylized facts method between the
first and the second quadrant, because it allows for qualitative inferences on the basis of qualitative and quantitative material
(Loos et al., 2011). This method enables the researcher to summarize and cumulate the published knowledge on a specific
phenomenon and to synthesize them into cause-effect-relationships (Houy, Fettke, & Loos, 2011). So far, only a few
examples of their application exist in IS research (i.e., Fichman, 2004; Houy et al., 2011)). The third quadrant shows the
classical (statistical) meta-analysis, which statistically analyzes quantitative findings across studies. Compared to other
review methods, (statistical) meta-analysis produces more accurate and reliable results (Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001). Even
though over hundreds of meta-analysis in the medical and social sciences exist (Stanley, 2001), it is far less popular in IS
research (King, 2005). The fourth quadrant depicts methods for transforming qualitative data into quantitative results. The
method frequently used in IS research to achieve simple quantification (e.g., frequency count) of qualitative data is the
descriptive content analysis (e.g., Lacity et al., 2011). To assure the generalizability of the results, a descriptive content
analysis often involves a systematic search of as many relevant papers in an investigated area as possible. However, this form
of content analysis relies only on simple descriptive statistics, which mainly allow for the presentation of frequency
distributions. The descriptive content analysis does not allow us to rigorously examine the knowledge that lies underutilized
in the numerous IS case studies.

Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois, August 15-17, 2013. 2
Jurisch et al. Case Survey Method for Information Systems Research

What IS research currently misses is a method with which one could transform qualitative case based evidence into
quantifiable results (e.g., test hypothesis or extent existing theories). The case survey method could fill this gap. The case
survey method allows to convert qualitative case study data into statistically analyzable quantitative data, using a coding
scheme and expert judgments by multiple coders (Larsson, 1993; Lucas, 1974; Yin & Heald, 1975). In the past five decades,
the case survey method was successfully employed and developed further in political science (Lucas, 1974; Yin & Heald,
1975), management science (Larsson, 1993) and public administration (Jensen & Rodgers, 2001). Applications of the method
in these disciplines have proven that case surveys are powerful and rigorous.

STAGES AND TECHNIQUES OF THE CASE SURVEY METHOD

The case survey method was originally developed for public policy analysis (Lucas, 1974; Yin & Heald, 1975). It is
sometimes referred to as structured content analysis of cases (Jauch, Osborn, & Martin, 1980) or case-meta analysis (Bullock
& Tubbs, 1990). The method was further refined by management science (Larsson, 1993) and public administration scholars
(Jensen & Rodgers, 2001). One important aspect of applying methods, which are originally home to other disciplines, is their
rigorous application. However, rigor necessitates that a “dominant set of standards and designs” exists to which the IS
community can commit to (Benbasat & Zmud, 2003). In the following sections, we will discuss the stages and techniques of
the case survey method, which should be adhered to, if rigorous outcomes are to be achieved. Figure 2 provides an overview
of the method’s five major stages, each of which generates a certain output.
Quality checks Intermediate
outputs
Stage 1 Developing research questions:

· Need to be grounded in theory Consistency Explication of

Research question · Can be questions concerning assessment (theory- check research gap
testing) or discovery of complex processes
(explorative).

Stage 2 Searching & sampling of case studies:

Case study sourcing Criteria for case Scanning of Rejection Case study
selection literature criteria sample

Stage 3 Designing (initial) coding scheme:

Survey development Identification of Operationalization Prestest(s) Coding scheme

variables of variables

Stage 4 Transformation of qualitative into quantitative data:

Data collection Identification & Coding of case Interrater Quantitative

training of coders studies reliability data

Stage 5 Statistical analysis of quantitative data:

Analysis of coding Analysis of Statistical

Data analysis Statistical modeling
validity biases results

Final output
Cumulation of case study
Theory development / extension
knowledge

Figure 2. A Blueprint for the Case Survey Method

Stage 1: Developing a Research Question

Developing carefully structured and clear research questions are the natural starting point for a case survey. These questions
can either be concrete and transferred into testable hypothesis or they can be more of explanatory nature (Larsson, 1993).
However, previous case studies in public policy analysis and management science showed that the case survey method may
be more appropriate for questions of assessment than the discovery of complex processes (Larsson & Finkelstein, 1999;
Robert K Yin & Heald, 1975). An example of such a question of assessment can be found in Stahl and Kremershof’s (2004)
case survey on mergers and acquisitions. They structured their research with the question “whether trust mediates the
relationships between characteristics of the integration process and post-combination integration outcomes” (Stahl &
Kremershof, 2004). Jurisch et al.’s (2013) case survey provides an example of a more explorative research question: “Which

Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois, August 15-17, 2013. 3
Jurisch et al. Case Survey Method for Information Systems Research

capabilities matter for successful business process change?”. Notwithstanding the type of research question posed, it appears
essential to thoroughly reflect on the type of knowledge one seeks to gain from the analysis of patterns across case studies
(Newig & Fritsch, 2009).

Stage 2: Searching and Sampling of Case Studies

The identification of the case study sample is one of the most crucial stages in the case survey method. In order to achieve
reliability and generalizability, the sampling of the case studies has to be planned and executed systematically (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). This stage can be separated into the following two steps: (1) definition of case selection and rejection
criteria and (2) the scanning of the literature.
Very clear selection and rejection criteria are needed in order to decide which cases studies should be included in the case
survey sample (Lucas, 1974). These criteria should be explicit and based on the theoretical domain the research questions
define (Bullock, 1986). Thus, the researcher has to first identify which theoretical domain(s) the phenomena studied apply to
(Lucas, 1974). For IS researchers this can vary considerably. For instance, if a researcher is interested in examining the
impact of trust on e-government adoption, he or she should not only include IS relevant literature, but also case studies from
public administration, political science and management science. The identification of the right population is essential for the
generalizability of the case survey results (Lucas, 1974). However, compared to more traditional reviews, the case survey
sample should not be restricted by the type of time period, publication status or research design (Larsson, 1993). As part of
the statistical analysis, the case survey method can control for the impact of these aspects (Newig & Fritsch, 2009). Another
important selection criterion is the amount of data reported on the phenomenon of interest within the case study. If too little
information is reported, the case study should be discarded. In case that two case studies exist that report the same empirical
evidence (cf., Bence, 1995; Hughes & Golden, 2001), one of them should be dismissed or both should be combined in one
coding set (Bullock, 1986). Otherwise, the occurrences would be counted twice.
Given that the research questions, the boundaries of the theoretical domain and the criteria for selection and rejection are
defined, the next step is to scan the literature for relevant case studies. In order to obtain a representative sample of case
studies from the defined universe of cases, the researcher needs to identify as many case studies as possible from as many
sources as possible (Larsson, 1993). Of course the question of sample size needs to be addressed. Larsson (1993) asserts that
collecting all relevant case studies may not only be impossible, but also difficult to handle by the available resources. Thus,
the sample size is not only limited by the number of existing case studies and statistical sufficiency, but by the available
resources. At the end, the researcher has to decide whether the total sample or a random subset of cases is used for the coding
(Newig & Fritsch, 2009).
Unfortunately, the current literature on the case survey method provides no insights on how to deal with the different
epistemological foundations of the case survey population. No references exist on how the different epistemological
assumptions of case studies (e.g., positivistic vs. explorative) would impact the overall results of the case survey. Larsson
(1993) only states that the case survey method holds the potential to bridge over traditional research gaps, such as those
between positivistic and humanistic approaches. In addition, not much clarity exists on how to evaluate the validity of the
case studies’ results or if this even a necessary step. However, this is a crucial topic that needs to be addressed, since invalid
results could taint the case survey’s conclusion.

Stage 3: Design of Coding Scheme

After the sampling of the case studies, their qualitative information needs to be converted into quantified variables through a
coding scheme (Bullock, 1986). One advantage of the case survey method compared to conventional questionnaires is that
lengthier and more comprehensive coding schemes can be used to allow for maximal information extraction (Lucas, 1974).
Since the reading and coding of the case studies presents a substantial effort, it is recommendable to collect as much
information as possible. To minimize potential biases, the researcher should even code all factors presenting possible
unwanted influence (e.g., author, publication, selection, coding and other biases) as variables. Newig and Fritsch (2009)
assert that “coding twice as many variables, implies considerably less than twice the effort”.
Even if the researcher is following a theory-testing research design, he or she should be open for surprises. Thus, the coding
scheme should account for the possibility that unpredicted correlations between variables might occur (Newig & Fritsch,
2009). Throughout the statistical analysis, the researcher can always exclude or aggregate data, but not the other way around.
The same is true for the design of the coding scales. A complex and potentially unreliable coding scheme can always be
collapsed into a more reliable one. For instance, a five-point Likert scale can be collapsed into a three-point Likert scale, but
not vice versa (Larsson & Finkelstein, 1999).

Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois, August 15-17, 2013. 4
Jurisch et al. Case Survey Method for Information Systems Research

One has to be aware, however, that more complex and detailed coding schemes may lead to lower interrater-reliability.
Larsson (1993) posits that the limit on how much complexity a case survey can capture is reached whenever interrater-
reliability becomes unacceptable. But the only way to identify this point is to start with a more comprehensive coding scheme
and to simplify it throughout several pretests until the level of reliability is acceptable (Larsson, 1993).

Stage 4: Transformation of Qualitative into Quantitative Data

The coding of the case studies refers to the systematic assignment of codes (numbers) to units based on the coding scheme
(Srnka & Koeszegi, 2007). This stage is typically the most time and resource consuming one in the entire case survey. Each
case study should be read and coded by a minimum of two and ideally three trained coders (Bullock, 1986). In order to avoid
undue coding influences, it is recommendable that the coders are unaware of the theoretical hypotheses (Larsson, 1993). We
can report from our own experiences with the case survey method that it is quite a lengthy and expensive endeavor. The
reading and coding (survey of 37 variables and 125 items) of a case study (15 pages on average) takes a trained coder
typically around 3.5 hours. Since our sample consisted of 129 case studies, the overall coding hours amounted up to 450
hours per coder. Hence, it is recommendable to include some of the original case study authors in the coding process. The
authors can provide more information than what is reported in the published evidence of their case study. Even though the
original authors present an excellent from of secondary validation (Larsson, 1993), the researcher has to be aware that the
case survey will take even longer once the authors are involved. Furthermore, author participation does frequently result in
lower interrater-reliability (Larsson & Finkelstein, 1999).

Stage 5: Statistical Analysis

As a minimum criterion of validity the construct validity should be assessed (Larsson & Finkelstein, 1999). An item has high
construct validity when it correlates with other items of the same construct (convergent) and is uncorrelated with items of
dissimilar constructs (discriminant) (Weber, 1990).
Whenever coding validity is established, the researcher can start to statistically analyze the large amounts of generated code.
Bullock (Bullock, 1986) posits that research questions in case surveys are either bivariate (e.g., the effect of size on results) or
multivariate (e.g., the effects of process and implementation variables on results). Thus, manifold methods exist for their
statistical inquiry. Next to bivariate and multivariate correlations, regression and path analysis are also common techniques in
case surveys (Bullock & Svyantek, 1985; Jurisch et al., 2013; Larsson, 1993; Newig & Fritsch, 2009). For instance, Bullock
and Svyantek (1985) relied on bivariate statistics, whereas Larsson and Finkelstein (1999) and Bullock and Tubbs (1990)
used multivariate statistics. LISREL and structured equation modeling are suitable for studying the complex relationships in
case studies (Jurisch et al., 2013; Larsson, 1993).
It is crucial that the case study aggregation must have no hidden biases. The researcher must apply the same standards and
procedures of rigorous inquiry as to any other statistical analysis (Lucas, 1974). In a case survey, researchers need to estimate
potential biases and apply weights to adjust for them. A number of methods exist for adjusting signs and magnitudes of the
combined effect sizes to reduce sources of potential bias. One of the goals in many meta-analytic inquiries is to calculate a
main effect or overall effect size (Whiston & Li, 2011). The case survey method offers the opportunity to identify even small
and non-significant effects, which can also contribute to the overall picture of the results.

LIMITATIONS OF THE CASE SURVEY METHOD

The case survey method has some inherent biases by virtue of the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the methods chosen to
review the literature. In fact, those biases are very similar to those of other review methods. First is the garbage in and
garbage out rule (Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001). If the information presented in the case studies is too vague or too little, no
statistical analysis can repair this damage (Bullock & Svyantek, 1985). The researcher must control for this bias in the
searching and sampling stage of the case survey. Second, the results are limited to theoretical domain, which the researcher
identifies in stage two of the case survey method. Thus, generalizations only apply within the realm of the selected domain
(King, 2005). Third, since the case survey method focuses on knowledge accumulation, it may not give sufficient attention to
the unique factors of an individual case (Yin & Heald, 1975). This trade-off, however, applies to any review method. The
fourth limitation is the publication bias, which refers to the fact that significant results are more likely to be published than
non-significant results (King, 2005). However, these results may not always be representative for the entire research
population. The fifth limitation addresses the sample size of a case survey. The statistical power of detecting a genuine effect
size depends on the number of case studies included in a case survey. However, no information exists on the minimum
sample size of a case survey. For instance, Larsson and Finkelstein’s (1999) final sample consisted of 61 case studies,
whereas Stahl and Kremershof’s (2004) sample comprised 50 case studies on mergers and acquisitions. The smallest reported

Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois, August 15-17, 2013. 5
Jurisch et al. Case Survey Method for Information Systems Research

case survey had a sample size of 33 case studies (Bullock & Tubbs, 1990). Hence, further specification on the minimum
sample size is needed.

POTENTIALS OF THE CASE SURVEY METHOD FOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH

Despite its limitations, we believe that the case survey methods holds the following potentials for IS research.

Taps the Vast Experiences Enclosed in IS Case Studies

Case studies are a tradition of IS research because they allow to focus specifically on the aggregate unit of analysis, such as
the organization, institution, or process. Some researchers argued that IS case studies produced somewhat disappointing
results and few theoretical generalizations (Benbasat, Goldstein, & Mead, 1987; Dubé & Paré, 2003); whereas others
highlight the rich insights and understandings into IS-related phenomena generated by case studies (Doolin, 1996; Myers &
Avison, 1997). The positive aspect of this discussion is that the ever growing body of case-based and other empirical
evidence is a sign that the IS discipline is maturing and evolving (King, 2005). Now, to continue this development, the often
inconsistent empirical findings need to be aggregated to help advance our theoretical core and direct future research in other
IS issues. More so, in order for the IS discipline to establish itself in a pluralist research tradition, there is a necessity to
reflect alternative methods (Chen & Hirschheim, 2004). The case survey method would introduce a new method into IS
research with which researchers could tap these vast experiences enclosed in IS case studies. The method provides a stringent
and subjective approach for analyzing this of pool of knowledge (Yin & Heald, 1975).

Synthesizes Qualitative Data into Quantitative Results

Additionally, the case survey method can fill a gap in the landscape of IS review methods currently used to synthesize
qualitative data into quantitative results. So far, only the descriptive content analysis is used in IS research to achieve
quantification of qualitative data (see figure 1). However, this method has the disadvantage that it only relies on simple
descriptive statistics and the statistical significance of the calculations resulting therefrom are often limited. The case survey
method allows researchers to arrive at conclusions that are accurate and credible. Of course, case surveys are not inherently
better than any other method. It is just that certain methods are more suitable for certain research questions and data sets
(Jensen & Rodgers, 2001). The results of past case surveys range from hypotheses and impact factor (model) testing (Bullock
& Tubbs, 1990; Jurisch et al., 2013; Stahl & Kremershof, 2004) to theory extensions (Larsson & Finkelstein, 1999) and
theory developments (Provan & Milward, 1995).

Helps in Answering Some Basic Questions in IS Research

We believe that the case survey method can even help provide answers to some basic questions that have been discussed in IS
research for a long time. Basic questions in this context refer to questions addressing the development of new theory or the
extension of existing theory. For instance, Larsson and Finkelstein (Larsson & Finkelstein, 1999) case survey synthesized
several theoretical perspectives on the topic of mergers and acquisitions into an integrative model. According to Eisenhardt
(Larsson & Finkelstein, 1999) their research provides some fundamental answers and therefore presents a defining paper on
this issue in management science. In IS research the case survey method can be helpful for investigating questions around IS
development, implementation, usage and impact (Benbasat & Zmud, 2003) in domains which are typically dominated by case
study research (e.g., electronic government, business process management, electronic health, open innovation, etc.).

Establishes Summative Validity for Theories Developed or Extended in IS Case Studies

The case survey method also offers a promising approach to the development, extension, synthesis and testing of theories in
IS research. As discussed previously the method is most suitable for questions of assessment. Therefore, it can help establish
summative validity of some of the theories developed or extended in previous case studies. Theories developed or extended
in IS case studies often have formative validity, but lack summative validity (Lee & Hubona, 2009). A theory that was
created following rigorous procedures may have formative validity and if this theory survives empirical inquiries it gains
summative validity (Carugati & Rossignoli, 2011). In other words, “there is no less of a need to develop rigorous techniques
for empirically testing an overall theory so as to establish its summative validity” (Lee & Hubona, 2009). We believe that the
case survey method can help IS researchers in (1) establishing summative validity for the theories developed in case studies,
(2) making these theories accessible to a wider IS audience and thus increase their relevance, and (3) enriching and
strengthening the theoretical core of the IS research community.

Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois, August 15-17, 2013. 6
Jurisch et al. Case Survey Method for Information Systems Research

REFERENCES
1. Alavi, M., & Carlson, P. (1992). A review of MIS research and disciplinary development. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 8(4), 45–62.
2. Benbasat, B. I., Goldstein, D. K., & Mead, M. (1987). The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems
Case Research: Definition. MIS Quarterly, September, 369–387.
3. Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (2003). The identity crisis within the IS discipline: Defining and communicating the
discipline’s core properties. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 183–194.
4. Bence, V. (1995). St James’s Hospital and Lucas Engineering Systems. Business Change and Re-engineering, 2(3), 30–
39.
5. Bullock, R. J. (1986). A Meta-Analysis Method for OD Case Studies. Group & Organization Management, 11(1-2), 33–
48.
6. Bullock, R. J., & Svyantek, D. J. (1985). Analyzing meta-analysis: Potential problems, an unsuccessful replication, and
evaluation criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1), 108–115.
7. Bullock, R. J., & Tubbs, M. E. (1990). A case meta-analysis of gainsharing plans as organization development
interventions. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26(3), 383–404.
8. Carugati, A., & Rossignoli, C. (2011). Emerging Themes in Information Systems and Organization Studies (p. 372).
Heidelberg Dodrecht London: Springer Verlag.
9. Chen, W., & Hirschheim, R. (2004). A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information systems research
from 1991 to 2001. Information Systems Journal, 14, 197–235.
10. Darke, P., & Shanks, G. (1998). Successfully completing case study research: combining rigour, relevance and
pragmatism. Information Systems Journal, 8(4), 273–289.
11. Doolin, B. (1996). Alternative views of case research in information systems. Australasian Journal of Information
Systems, 3(1), 21–29.
12. Dubé, L., & Paré, G. (2003). Rigor in information systems positivist case research: current practices, trends, and
recommendations. MIS Quarterly, 27(4), 597–635.
13. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges. The Academy
of Management Journal, 50(1), 25.
14. Fichman, R. G. (2004). Real Options and IT Platform Adoption: Implications for Theory and Practice. Information
Systems Research, 15(2), 132–154.
15. Houy, C., Fettke, P., & Loos, P. (2011). Stilisierte Fakten in der gestaltungsorientierten Wirtschaftsinformatik –
Allgemeine Potentiale und erste Erfahrungen. Wirtschaftsinformatik (pp. 1157–1166). Zürich.
16. Hughes, M., & Golden, W. (2001). Intranet Technology as as Enabler of BPR: An Exploratory Study in Public
Healthcare. ECIS 2001 Proceedings (pp. 1149–1158). Bled, Slovenia.
17. Jauch, L. R., Osborn, R. N., & Martin, T. N. (1980). Structured Content Analysis of Cases: A Complementary Method
for Organizational Research. The Academy of Management Review, 5(4), 517.
18. Jensen, J., & Rodgers, R. (2001). Cumulating the intellectual gold of case study research. Public Administration Review,
61(2), 235–246.
19. Jurisch, M. C., Palka, W., Wolf, P., & Krcmar, H. (2013). Which capabilities matter for successful busines process
change? Business Process Management Journal, to appear.
20. King, W. R. (2005). Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, 16, 665–686.
21. Kohler Riessman, C. (2005). Narrative Analysis. Narrative, Memory & Everyday Life (pp. 1–7). Huddersfield:
University of Huddersfield.
22. Krippendorf, K. (1980). Content Analysis. An Introduction to its Methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
23. Lacity, M. C., Solomon, S., Aihua, Y., & Willcocks, L. P. (2011). Business process outsourcing studies: a critical review
and research directions. Journal of Information Technology, 26(4), 221–258.
24. Laitenberger, O., El Emam, K., & Habrich, T. G. (2001). An Internally Replicated Quasi-Experimental Comparison of
Checklist and Perspective- Based Reading of Code Documents. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 27(5),
387–421.
25. Larsson, R. (1993). Case Survey Methodology: Quantitative Analysis of Patterns across Case Studies. The Academy of
Management Journal, 36(6), 1515–1546.
26. Larsson, R., & Finkelstein, S. (1999). Integrating strategic, organizational, and human resource perspectives on mergers
and acquisitions: A case survey of synergy realization. Organization Science, 10(1).
27. Lee, A. S., & Hubona, G. S. (2009). A scientific basis for rigor in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 33(2),
237–262.

Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois, August 15-17, 2013. 7
 Jurisch et al. Case Survey Method for Information Systems Research

28. Levina, N., & Ross, J. W. (2003). From the vendor’s perspective: exploring the value proposition in information
technology outsourcing. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 331–364.
29. Loos, P., Fettke, P., Weißenberger, B. E., Zelewski, S., Heinzl, A., Frank, U., & Iivari, J. (2011). What in Fact is the
Role of Stylized Facts in Fundamental Research of Business and Information Systems Engineering? Business &
Information Systems Engineering, 3(2), 107–125.
30. Lucas, W. A. (1974). The case survey method: Aggregating case experience. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
31. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (p. 337). London: Sage.
32. Myers, M. D., & Avison, D. (1997). Qualitative research in information systems. Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 21(June), 241–242.
33. Newig, J., & Fritsch, O. (2009). The case survey method and applications in political science. Political Science
Association [APSA) 2009, 49(September), 3–6.
34. Piekkari, R., & Welch, C. (2011). Rethinking the Case Study in International Business and Management Research (p.
557). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
35. Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A Preliminary Theory of Interorganizational Network Effectiveness : A
Comparative Study of Four Connmunity Mental Health Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 1–33.
36. Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta-analysis: recent developments in quantitative methods for literature
reviews. Annual review of psychology, 52, 59–82.
37. Rumrill Jr, P. D., & Fitzgerald, S. M. (2001). Using narrative literature reviews to build a scientific knowledge base.
Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 16(2), 165–170.
38. Smith, C. P. (2000). Content Analysis and Narrative Analysis. In H. Reis & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of research
methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 313–335). New York: Academic Press.
39. Srnka, K., & Koeszegi, S. (2007). From words to numbers: how to transform qualitative data into meaningful
quantitative results. SBR, 59(January), 29–58.
40. Stahl, G., & Kremershof, I. (2004). Trust dynamics in mergers and acquisitions: A case survey. Academy of
Management. Singapore.
41. Stall-Meadows, C., & Hyle, A. (2010). Procedural methodology for a grounded meta-analysis of qualitative case studies.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(4), 412–418.
42. Stanley, T. (2001). Wheat from chaff: Meta-analysis as quantitative literature review. The Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 15(3), 131–150.
43. Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic Content Analysis (p. 97). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
44. Whiston, S. C., & Li, P. (2011). Meta-Analysis: A Systematic Method for Synthesizing Counseling Research. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 89(3), 273–281.
45. Yin, R.K., & Heald, K. . (1975). Using the case survey method to analyze policy studies. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 20, 371–381.
46. Yin, R. K, & Heald, K. A. (1975). Using the Case Survey Method to Analyze Policy Studies. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 20(September), 371–382.

Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois, August 15-17, 2013. 8

View publication stats