Methodical failure: the use of case study method by public relations researchers

Public Relations Review 30 (2004) 365–375

Methodical failure: the use of case study methodby public relations researchers

Andrew Cutler∗

Greater Wellington Regional Council, P.O. Box 11-646, Wellington, New Zealand

Received 13 May 2002; received in revised form 2 April 2004; accepted 1 May 2004

Abstract

Case studies comprise up to a third of published articles in the public relations literature. There has, however,been little discussion in the literature of their methodological advantages or shortcomings as a research tool, orreflection on the quality of published case studies. This paper reviews the literature on case-study research, andsurveys 5 years of case studies published inPublic Relations Review to determine the quality of their methodology.The results indicate that few researchers understand or apply good case method.

The paper concludes that case studies, if thoughtfully conceived and well executed are a research tool well suitedto the study of public relations. It is suggested that poor methodology has undermined the role of case research inthe development of theory. If properly applied case research could usefully balance the influence of quantitativeresearch which tends to isolate research problems from the processes of public relations practice that are embeddedin social or organizational contexts.© 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Case study method; Public relations practice; Methodical failure; Public relations theory; Case research

. . . the method simultaneously expresses the subjective approach of the thinker and the objectivecontent of what he is thinking about. In the last analysis, though, it is the content that provides the“grounds” for the method, since, while the method expresses the procedure adopted by the thoughtprocess, the latter expresses the nature of what is being thought about.Godelier (1993)

The phenomenon being researched always dictates to some extent the terms of its own dissection andexploration.Leonard-Barton (1990)

∗ Tel.: +64 4 381 7782.E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Cutler).

0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2004.05.008

366 A. Cutler / Public Relations Review 30 (2004) 365–375

1. Introduction

What is the best methodology for researching public relations practices and developing theory? In fieldssuch as law, medicine, psychology, social work and education there are lively and extensive literaturesreflecting on the appropriate ways to investigate the practices of professional groups within social contexts.The close relationship between research design and the validity of results is well understood, as is theimportance of doing research that influences practice as well as contributes to theory building.

Case studies make up as much as a third of the research in public relations journals, are widely usedin textbooks and form the basis for industry awards. Despite their widespread use there has been limiteddiscussion in the public relations literature of their methodological advantages or shortcomings, despitethese being well understood in the wider social science literature. By comparison, methods for quantitativeresearch are well understood and widely taught, and consequently appear to be increasingly influentialin the development of theory and practice.

The need to build theory has been a particular issue in the public relations domain. Increasingly theprocess of theory development is being dominated by quantitative research such as that of Grunig’sExcellence Study, or the complex of studies by Dozier and Lauzen relating to role and gender. Theapplicability of case method to the development and testing of theoretical propositions is not as wellunderstood. Given the resources currently expended on poor quality case research, this is a lost opportunity.Eisenhardt, describes the value of good case research thus:

Theory developed from case study research is likely to have important strengths like novelty, testability,and empirical validity, which arise from the intimate linkage with empirical evidence. Second, given thestrengths of this theory-building approach and its independence from prior literature or past empiricalobservation, it is particularly well-suited to new research areas or research areas for which existingtheory seems inadequate.Eisenhardt (1989)

Outside of academia the development of good case study research has relevance to practioners. Thebody of academic case research can be an important influence on students. The academic case should alsoset the benchmark for good method, and thereby influence practitioners who are undertaking case-basedresearch projects within organizations. Furthermore, a good understanding of case method will assistacademics and practitioners to be more critical in their assessment of cases.

2. Methodological discussion in public relations research

There has been little discussion of methodological issues in public relations journals or texts. A surveyof indexes for the two main journals,Public Relations Review andJournal of Public Relations Researchfound no articles that specifically addressed methodological issues in public relations research.

Methodological concerns do surface occasionally. Morton and Lin’s analysis of content and citationsin Public Relations Review quantifies the change in proportions of qualitative and quantitative researchbetween 1975 and 1993. They note that across the field of mass communications there has been a “steadyincrease in articles using quantitative methods”Morton and Lin (1995).

In their chapter inPublic Relations Theory, Hazelton and Botan several times touch on the broaderissue of the relationship of methodology to theory. They note that public relations research draws onboth the “empirical and humanistic traditions” and that “currently, little data suggests the superiority of

A. Cutler / Public Relations Review 30 (2004) 365–375 367

one tradition over the other.. . . In this formative stage of social-science based public relations research,premature commitment to a particular theory or methodology is inappropriate”Hazleton and Botan(1989).

Concern about the methodology of published case study research has been raised occasionally in thedecade since publication ofPublic Relations Theory. McElreath and Blamphin described the bulk of theprevious decades research as “applied, descriptive research with limited generalizability”McElreath andBlamphin (1994). Newsom, in a review of books of case studies available to students, noted that “Onthe whole, public relations cases often are shallow, even when they are written by someone inside theorganisation.. . . Most public relations case texts rely on positive cases, usually award-winning effortsof one kind or another”Newsom (1996).

3. Case studies—a description

Four types of case can be identified from the social science literature. The first, the teaching case, iscommon. Yin notes that “for teaching purposes, a case need not contain a complete or accurate renditionof actual events; rather its purpose is to establish a framework for discussion and debate among students”Yin (1994). Case histories, by comparison, are a record keeping and diagnosis tool used in fields suchas law, medicine and social work. Most of the cases produced by the public relations industry are casehistories. Merriam notes a third use of the term in the context of “case work” to describe the managementof therapies following diagnosisMerriam (1985).

The fourth type—research cases—differs significantly from that of cases designed for teaching, recordkeeping or professional practice. Research cases are used to investigate activities or complex processesthat are not easily separated from the social context within which they occur. Their suitability is foundedon two factors: the bounded nature of cases; and the flexibility in choosing data gathering processes.

3.1. Boundaries

Sharan Merriam argues that “the single most defining characteristic of case study research lies in de-limiting the object of study the case.. . . a thing, a single entity, a unit around which there are boundaries”.Drawing on her background in educational research Merriam emphasises the physical boundaries of caseresearch “. . . a person such as a student, a teacher, a principal; a program; a group such as a class,a school, a community; a specific policy and so on”Merriam (1998a). Secondly, Merriam focuses onconcrete boundaries, including “. . . an instance of some concern, issue, or hypothesis”Merriam (1998b).

Yin takes a slightly different approach to Merriam in defining the characteristics of a research case. Yindescribes a case study as the investigation of “a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context”.To Yin, a key point is that “the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident”,thereby requiring a “comprehensive research strategy” rather than the use of a particular data gatheringmethodologyYin (1994a). Eisenhardt combines the essential points of these two definitions when shedescribes the case study as “a research strategy which focuses on understanding the dynamics presentwithin single settings”Eisenhardt (2004a).

The applicability of these definitions to public relations are clear. There are often obvious boundariesto public relations practice, and particular phenomenon of interest to scholars are often influenced bythe context in which public relations is practiced. Among the boundaries that might be identified are


those of the people involved such as the practitioner, the consultancy, the client or the publics beingcommunicated with; the beginning and end of particular projects; the issue or campaign being focusedupon. The requirement is that a satisfactory boundary can be identified that enables the research to beundertaken without undermining the reliability or validity of the data gathering. If the boundary is vagueor porous, the situation is not a case.

Merriam’s second focus on “instances of some concern, issue, or hypothesis” appears similar to Yin’sdefinition emphasising phenomena within their context. These foci also adapt well to the study of publicrelations practices. If, for example, a researcher was interested in aspects of crisis management, he orshe could select an instance, or instances of crisis management to study in depth. Many examples ofpublic relations practice are defined by the issues they manage, by the approach taken (media relationsfor example) or by the roles of practitioners, and are essentially ready-made cases.

The point of establishing boundaries is to focus research capability on a complex subject in order toachieve a rather more complete understanding of individual processes being studied. Theparticularisticnature of case research, meaning the “specificity of focus” is described by Merriam as making it “anespecially good design for practical problems—for questions, situations, or puzzling occurrences arisingfrom everyday practice”Merriam (1998c).

3.2. Data gathering processes

Yin describes case research as a “comprehensive research strategy”Yin (1994b)rather than a particularmethodology for data collection. In other words, case research can employ many data collection methods,either quantitative or qualitative, depending on the variables being studied. While it should be a strengthof case research method, the choice of data collection methods has contributed to problems with validityand reliability, and hence limited the ability to generalise across cases.

According to Yin, the key to successfully designing a case study research strategy is “the prior de-velopment of theoretical propositions to guide data collection and analysis”Yin (1994c). This approachhas a number of benefits. Firstly, the choice of data gathering method is determined by the hypothesesbeing tested not by the character of the raw data being examined. Case design based on consideration oftheoretical propositions is likely to result in a wide choice of data gathering techniques being adopted,and a more explicit recognition of the impact data gathering techniques have on subsequent analysis.The cases reviewed in this study use a limited number of data gathering techniques: content analysis,rhetorical and textual analysis being dominant.

Secondly, developing cases based on theoretical propositions enables researchers to compare rivalhypotheses within a case. As Yin describes it, “. . . rather than generalizing to a universe or population,case study research should be used to expand our understanding of theoretical propositions and hypothesesin those situations where (a) the context is important and (b) the investigator cannot manipulate events(as in an experiment)”Yin (1992).

Developing his proposition that case method should be comprehensive, Yin argues that the design ofresearch cases should “emulate. . . the scientific method”. Accordingly the process begins with:

. . . the posing of clear questions and the development of a formal research design; the use of theory andreviews of previous research to develop hypotheses and rival hypotheses; the collection of empiricaldata to test these hypotheses and rival hypotheses; the assembling of a database—independent ofany narrative report, interpretations, or conclusions—that can be inspected by third parties; and the


conduct of quantitative or qualitative analyses (or both), depending on the topic and research design.Yin(1993)

The approach Yin advocates distinguishes case research from its cousin, grounded theory, with whichit is sometimes confused. Grounded theory is a qualitative research methodology in which the researcherseeks to build theory from the data through a process of categorisation. While cases are often used tobuild hypotheses, by following Yin’s approach they can also be used to test hypotheses.

Dorothy Leonard-Barton identifies another benefit of adopting a case methodology based on a researchstrategy—that of using multiple data gathering techniques to compare evidence on a particular theoreticalproposition. Leondard-Barton describes case study research as “a history of a past or current phenomenon,drawn from multiple sources of evidence. It can include data from direct observation and systematicinterviewing as well as from public and private archives. In fact, any fact relevant to the stream of eventsdescribing the phenomenon is a potential datum in a case study, since context is important”Leonard-Barton(2004). The data-gathering techniques may include both quantitative and qualitative tools, either in a singlestudy, or in sub-studies that contribute to an overall analysis. Another means of deepening the evidence isby undertaking multiple cases across organisational or geographical boundaries or by using a longitudinalapproach. Such approaches greatly enhance generalizability.

Two approaches are possible when considering the use of multiple data gathering techniques. Firstly,a case can use data-gathering tools that “triangulate” an issue. In other words, the unit of analysis beingstudied is the same across data sets. This would result in high construct validity. Secondly, the data gath-ering methods can be “corroborative”. In a corroborative method data-gathering tools that are synergisticare chosen. In this context Eisenhardt notes that “Quantitative evidence can indicate relationships whichmay not be salient to the researcher. It also can keep researchers from being carried away by vivid, butfalse, impressions in qualitative data, and it can bolster findings when it corroborates those findings fromqualitative evidence”Eisenhardt (2004b).

4. Problems with case method

According to Hoaglin, Light, McPeek, Mosteller and Stoto, the problem with case research is that,“most people feel that they can prepare a case study, and nearly all of us believe we can understand one.Since neither view is well founded, the case study receives a good deal of approbation it does not deserve”Hoaglin, Light, McPeek, Mosteller, and Stoto (1982). The following methodological issues are commonfor all types of social scientific research, but are especially important for case research.

4.1. Generalizability

Case studies are often criticised for lacking generalizability. This criticism is founded on the com-parison of research cases with social science research that uses statistical sampling to achieve statisticalgeneralizations. As cases cannot be considered sample units, they cannot be used to achieve a statisticalgeneralization. Instead, cases can be used to achieve analytical generalizations. Using this approach “apreviously developed theory is used as a template with which to compare the empirical results of thecase study. If two or more cases are shown to support the same theory, replication may be claimed. Theempirical results may be considered yet more potent if two or more cases support the same theory but donot support an equally plausible,rival theory”Yin (1994d). If such an approach is granted the focus shifts


to ensuring that the processes by which case research is undertaken is sufficiently rigorous to ensure thevalidity of results.

4.2. Validity

A recent text on communication research methods describes validity as relating “to the nature of ourfindings, and the degree to which these are a true reflection of what we formally state we are dealingwith in declaring our aims and objectives. For example, do our findings relate to real behaviour, or arethey artificial, being little more than artefacts of the research design”?Halloran (1998). The ability ofcase research to capture the complexity of public relations practice suggests, on the face of it, that thisapproach should have a high degree of validity. To achieve validity, three tests can be applied.

4.2.1. Construct validityAchieving construct validity involves operationalising the data-gathering units of analysis and measures

to avoid subjective judgement. For example, if the unit of analysis is a crisis situation, the measures mightinclude the success of public relations professionals in influencing the media agenda, as measured bycontent analysis. To achieve construct validity the operationalised measure (content analysis) must beshown to be a true reflection of success in influencing the media, and not just a chance occurrence or aninference by the researcher. To achieve this, Yin suggests three tactics: “The first is the use ofmultiplesources of evidence . . . (a) second tactic is to establish achain of evidence . . . (the) third tactic is to havethe draft case study report reviewed by key informants”.Yin (1994e)

4.2.2. Internal validityInternal validity concerns research where causal links, or inferences of such links, between two events

are made. To avoid making invalid links it is important that the researcher has considered alternativeexplanations in his or her research design, and sought out evidence that might disconfirm the link.

Internal validity is important for a subject such as public relations where many factors may have an in-fluence on the outcome of a campaign. This complexity is a challenge to the researcher using case method,but is equally if not more of a challenge to researchers using tools that abstract data from the context,such as surveys or content analysis. The advantage of case method is that if the research design identifiesa causal linkage to study, it can employ a range of data gathering methods to ensure internal validity.

4.2.3. ReliabilityReliability has to do with the transparency of research methods used to gather data. Halloran comments

that reliability “is normally considered to be high if two or more researchers, addressing the same subjectwith the same methods, come up with the same, or very nearly the same results”Halloran (2004). At itsmost basic, reliability requires a description of the research methods used in a study. Such a description iscommonly given in the methodology section of a published paper. At a more sophisticated level, reliabilitycan be addressed through the use of a protocol that describes each step in the research process.

5. Case studies in the public relations research literature

Case studies are one of the dominant forms of research in the public relations literature. According to asurvey undertaken in 1989 by Broom, Cox, Krueger and Liebler, 35% of research reported in two journals


over the preceding 10 years was case study or descriptive research. Another 14% were characterized ashistorical analysis or research, a methodology that is often similar to that of case studyBroom, Cox,Krueger, and Liebler (1989a). In order to review the methodologies being use by case researchers, asimple content analysis of five years ofPublic Relations Reviewwas undertaken, and descriptive statisticsprepared.

6. Research questions

Based on the preceding literature, the following research questions were designed.

Q. 1. What proportion of articles published in thePublic Relations Review can be described as casestudies, and has the proportion changed from that of prior studies?

Q. 2. What proportion of case studies describe a recognisable case study methodology?Q. 3. What proportion of case studies contain a methodology section?Q. 4. What proportion of case studies describe hypotheses and/or research questions?Q. 5. What proportion of case studies are based on theoretical propositions and make a contribution to

the development or testing of theory?

7. Method

All articles in five volumes (1995–1999) ofPublic Relations Review were analysed using a questionnairethat operationalised the research questions. Bibliographic volumes ofReview were excluded from thesurvey, as was a special edition on public relations education. Broom, Cox, Krueger and Liebler’s contentcategory descriptionBroom et al. (1989b)was used as the basis for identifying case articles.

The research questions were operationalized using eight questions that formed the basis for coding. The29 articles identified as being case studies were read to determine if they: (1) described themselves explic-itly as case studies in their title; or (2) in their abstract; (3) whether they contained a methodology section;and (4) whether the methodology section recognized case study method; or (5) other methodologicaltools such as data gathering, coding techniques, content analysis, and so on. The articles were then readto determine: (6) if a theoretical basis for the case was identified; (7) if a hypothesis or research questionswere described; and (8) if the article attempted a contribution to the development or refinement of theory.

Answers were coded by the author, and by a Ph.D. student studying public relations. Holsti and Scott’spi intercoder reliability tests were administered, both of which showed a degree of intercoder reliabilitygreater than 90 percent for all questions (Table 1).

8. Results

Twenty-six percent of articles were identified as case studies, nearly 10% fewer than identified byBroom, Cox, Krueger and Liebler’s content analysis. The reason for this change is not clear. It may reflectthe call from researchers such as Morton and Lin for an increased emphasis on quantitative research.

Of the 29 articles identified as having features of case studies, only four described themselves as casesin their titles. A further eight identified themselves as cases in their abstract (Table 2).


Table 1Intercoder reliability

Question Holsti Scott’s pi

1 1 12 1 13 1 14 0.96 0.955 0.93 0.906 0.96 0.957 0.96 0.958 0.96 0.95

Table 2Number of case studies identified

PublicRelationsReview

Articles that explicitlydescribe themselves ascase studies in their title(in abstract)

Articles that are orhave features of a casestudy, or include cases

Total number ofarticles in volume

Percentage of articlesusing case studymethodology

Vol. 21 0/(1) 3 21Vol. 22 1/(2) 5 21Vol. 23 1/(1) 9 23Vol. 24 1/(3) 8 31Vol. 25 1/(1) 4 14

Total 4/(8) 29 110 26%

Only one article of 29 included any explicit reference to case study method. Eight articles includedsome (usually brief) discussion of research method (usually a description of data gathering techniques).Altogether, fewer than half—13 of 29 articles—included a separate section on methodology (Table 3).

Two-thirds of articles attempted to establish a theoretical basis for their study. In all but two cases thiswas achieved in the literature review. One-third of articles attempted to extend or test the theory thatformed the starting point for the study. Despite the attempts to establish and test theory, only five articlesdeveloped testable hypotheses or research questions (Table 4).

9. Discussion

The literature review and content analysis undertaken in this paper suggests that understanding andapplication of appropriate methodology is a major issue for public relations researchers wishing to usecase studies as a research tool.

In the cases reviewed there is a failure to link the choice of methodology to the theoretical issuesbeing investigated. In only two of 29 articles reviewed are the methodological implications of the chosenresearch tool considered in the discussion. In other words, construct validity is almost non-existent. In afurther eleven articles the discussion of method was limited to a description of the data gathering tools—anecessary but insufficient interpretation of what constitutes a methodological discussion.


Table 3Methodological description


Articles that are orhave features of a casestudy, or include cases

Article includesseparate methodologysection

13 Articles with methodology section

Of articles withmethodologysection—those thatrecognise or describe casestudy methodology

Of articles withmethodologysection—those thatrecognise or describe othermethodology

Vol. 21 3 2 0 1Vol. 22 5 2 0 2Vol. 23 9 5 0 1Vol. 24 8 3 0 3Vol. 25 4 1 1 1

Total 29 13 (45% of total) 1 (3% of total/8% of thosewith a separatemethodology)

8 (27% of total/61% ofthose with a methodsection)

Table 4Reference to theory


Articles that are or havefeatures of a case study, orinclude cases

Theoretical basisfor case identified

Hypothesis or researchquestions described

Article attemptscontribution to theorydevelopment or testing

Vol. 21 3 1 1 (RQ) 1Vol. 22 5 4 1 (H) 3Vol. 23 9 4 2 (Hs) 3Vol. 24 8 7 1 (RQ) 2Vol. 25 4 3 0 1

Total 29 19 (66%) 5 (17%) 10 (34%)

The failure to consider method severely restricts the ability of the articles to develop or test theoreticalpropositions. More than two-thirds of articles attempt no theory testing or development, and the devel-opment of research questions or hypotheses is very limited. One of the most disturbing findings of thisanalysis is that more than half of the case studies failed to describe a reliable data gathering method,thereby rendering it impossible to build on, or replicate the research.

10. Conclusion

For public relations research to achieve credibility in the eyes of other academic domains, it mustrigorously evaluate the research practices it uses. Scholars have a responsibility to themselves, theircolleagues and their students to consider their methods with care. The methodological failures describedundermine the potential of case research to contribute to the development of the public relations bodyof knowledge. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the failure of case method lies with the


application of scholars, not with the method itself. By comparison, scholars using quasi-experimentalresearch methods have successfully developed a body of knowledge and systematically tested theoreticalpropositions. Little wonder that Morton and Lin argue that increasing the volume of quantitative researchis the means to increase the citation of public relations research in the broader social science literatureMorton and Lin (1995a).

The effort that has gone into the development, data-gathering and analysis of the case studies reviewedin this article is substantial. Sadly, most of this effort has been wasted because the authors fail to meetthe basic methodological standards needed to achieve the tests of validity. None of the articles reviewedapply the kind of comprehensive research strategy described by Yin. As a consequence of this failure tolink theory and method, or describe reliable research methods the value of this work is very limited.

Despite this disappointing record, case research that gathers a variety of data from multiple campaigns,using reliable and valid designs could prove a powerful tool for researchers. Further, the potential forresearchers to bring together studies across cultures, nations and over time is substantial. With the appli-cation of appropriate methodology the significant time and resources being applied to case study researchcould yield far greater results than is evident at present.

From another perspective, the application of appropriate case method might increase the influence ofresearch on practice. The tendency of quasi-experimental research to abstract data from its context meansthat the results often have little immediacy to practitioners. Using case method to test or demonstratetheoretical propositions may be a more fruitful and powerful way for the academy to influence practice.

In 1989 Hazelton and Botan argued that it was “premature” and “inappropriate” for researchers tocommit to either the humanistic or empirical research tradition, and that the superiority of either in thefield of public relations research was unprovenHazelton and Botan (1989a). They also noted—drawingon the work of Poole and McPhee—that the “a priori” choice of research methods by scholars may “havethe same assumptive force as a world view”Hazelton and Botan (1989b). While case study methodremains poorly applied the quantitative tradition will continue to drive the body of theory and knowledge.If, however, case researchers master their case method, a fruitful source of theory and results wouldresult—and perhaps a different world view.

Acknowledgements

The author began this study while a member of the Department of Communication and Journalism ofMassey University, Wellington, New Zealand. The study was completed while employed by the GreaterWellington Regional Council as their Strategic Communication Manager. Thanks to the PartnershipResearch Fund of Massey University Wellington for purchasing resources for this project and to MicheleSchoenberger-Orgad of the Department of Communications, Waikato University, for coding. Contact:[email protected].

References

Broom, G. M., Cox, M. S., Krueger, E. A., & Liebler, C. M. (1989). The gap between professional and research agendas inpublic relations journals. In J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig (Eds.),Public Relations Research Annual (Vol. 1, pp. 141–154).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

http://[email protected]


Broom, G. M., Cox, M. S., Krueger, E. A., & Liebler, C. M. (1989). The gap between professional and research agendas inpublic relations journals. In J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig (Eds.),Public Relations Research Annual (Vol. 1, p. 147). Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research.Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 548–549.Eisenhardt, op. cit., p. 534.Eisenhardt, op. cit., p. 538.Godelier, M. (1993). Rationality and irrationality in economics. In J. Hamel,Case study methods (p. 134). Newbury Park: Sage.Halloran, J. D. (1998). Mass communication research: asking the right questions. In A. Hansen, A. Cottle, R. S. Negrine, & C.

Newbold (Eds.),Mass communication research methods (p. 19). New York: New York University Press.Halloran, op. cit., p. 19.Hazleton, V. & Botan, C. (1989). The role of theory in public relations. In C. Botan & V. Hazleton (Eds.),Public Relations

Theory (pp. 13–14). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.V. Hazelton & C. Botan (1989a), op. cit., pp. 13–14.V. Hazelton & C. Botan (1989b), op. cit., p. 6.Hoaglin, D. C., Light, R. J., McPeek, B., Mosteller, F., & Stoto M. A. (1982).Data for decisions: Information strategies for

policymakers (p. 134). Cambridge, MA: Abt Books.Leonard-Barton, D. (1990). A dual methodology for case studies: synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated

multiple sites.Organisational Science, 1(3), 249.Leonard-Barton, op. cit., p. 249.McElreath, M. P., & Blamphin, J. M. (1994). Partial answers to priority research questions—and gaps—found in the Public

Relations Society of America’s body of knowledge.Journal of Public Relations Research, 6(2), 70.Merriam, S. B. (1985). The case study in educational research: a review of selected literature.The Journal of Educational

Thought, 19(3), 205.Merriam, S. B. (1998).Qualitative research and case study applications in education (p. 27). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Merriam, S. B. (1998).Qualitative research and case study applications in education (p. 28). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Merriam, S. B. (1998), op. cit., p. 29.Morton, L. P., & Lin, L. (1995). Content and citation analyses ofPublic Relations Review. Public Relations Review, 21(4), 338.Morton, L. P. & Lin L. (1995a). op. cit., p. 348.Newsom, D. (1996). Review of public relations literature: case books.Public Relations Review, 22(4), 388.Yin, R. K. (1992). Case study design. InEncyclopedia of Educational Research (Vol. 1, p. 136). New York: Macmillan Publishing

Company.Yin, R. K. (1993). InApplications of case study research (p. xvi). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Yin, R.K. (1994). InCase study research: design and methods (2nd ed., p. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Yin, R.K. (1994a). op. cit., p. 13.Yin, R.K. (1994b). op. cit., p. 13.Yin, R.K. (1994c). op. cit., p. 13.Yin, R.K. (1994d). op. cit., p. 31.Yin, R.K. (1994e). op. cit., pp. 34–35.

Methodical failure: the use of case study method by public relations researchers

Documents

Transcript of Methodical failure: the use of case study method by public relations researchers