As an editor, I receive many enquiries from potential contributors about appropriate subjects for manuscripts, positioning of manuscripts and the review process. However, the most frequent enquiries by far concern case studies – what the Journal defines as a case study and how case studies are reviewed. It seems there is some confusion about what constitutes a publishable case study and whether case studies are considered ‘inferior’ to traditional research papers.

Let me start by stating that the Journal is very much interested in case studies and case study research. One of our most important missions is to bridge the practitioner and academic communities in the field of sports marketing. A well structured and insightful case study is an excellent way to create such a bridge. So, what is a good well structured and insightful case?

First, it is important to distinguish between two types of case studies: intrinsic case studies and instrumental case studies (Wiling, 2001). Both are characterised by a single unit of analysis (n=1), but they have different objectives and need to be judged differently.

An intrinsic case study is descriptive in nature and rich in detail. It incorporates the researcher(s) point of view via an in-depth description of a person(s), event(s) or organisation(s). As Zonabend (1992) describes it, “case study is done by giving special attention to completeness in observation, reconstruction, and analysis of the cases under study. Case study is done in a way that incorporates the views of the ‘actors’ in the case under study.” The event, organisation or person is chosen because they are familiar and of interest to the writer – so might be of interest to a larger audience. Their main objective is to provide a wealth of ‘inside information’ that can shed light on an event (decision) or behaviour of a person or organisation. It should be obvious how the researcher/writer gained the intimate knowledge – perhaps by being a part of the phenomenon, observing it or sourcing information from people that were a part (e.g. through interviews or analysis).

By contrast, an instrumental case study is more recognisable as case study research. It is more scientific (but still qualitative in nature) and represents a more generic phenomenon. In short, it should clearly establish:

• What the main questions were (motivation).
• Why this method of research was chosen.
• Why a particular unit(s) of analysis was (were) chosen. (Convenience is not a good reason.)
• How data was collected (detailed description of sources or instrument used).
• The criteria for interpreting findings.
• Why findings can be generalised to other situations.

The Journal accepts both types of case study. Each has its value if done well, and submissions are very much encouraged.

Dr David Shani

References:

Willing, C (2001), Introducing qualitative research in psychology. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Yin, R. (1994), Case study research: Design and methods, 2nd edn. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.

Zonabend, F. (1992), The monograph in European ethnology. Current Sociology, 40(1), 49-60.