Theory Building, Case Dependence, and Researchers’ Bounded Rationality: An Illustration From Studies of Innovation Diffusion

IF 6.5 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS Sociological Methods & Research Pub Date : 2021-02-09 DOI:10.1177/0049124120986201
Nuno Oliveira, D. Secchi
{"title":"Theory Building, Case Dependence, and Researchers’ Bounded Rationality: An Illustration From Studies of Innovation Diffusion","authors":"Nuno Oliveira, D. Secchi","doi":"10.1177/0049124120986201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Researchers increasingly take advantage of the comparative case design to build theory, but the degree of case dependence is occasionally discussed and theorized. We suggest that the comparative case study design might be subject to an often underappreciated threat—dependence across cases—under certain conditions. Using research on innovation diffusion as an illustration, we explore the role of social linkages across cases when building theory through comparison and contrast between cases. We develop an agent-based simulation, grounded by comparative case research about innovation diffusion, as novel way to study the implications of case dependence in theory building using multiple-case study research. Our simulation results suggest that the degree of case dependence has a nontrivial bearing on innovation diffusion experienced by case entities, specifically when the researcher draws a few case entities operating in a highly interconnected industry. Under these conditions, overlooking the degree of case dependence might weaken newly built theory against commonly held standards of internal validity and external validity in inductive research. We conceptualize the issue of case dependence as a concern about researchers’ bounded rationality. Accordingly, we build on our findings to provide actionable advice aiming to alleviate this concern while being amendable to the variety of approaches to build theory from multiple cases in social sciences.","PeriodicalId":21849,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Methods & Research","volume":"52 1","pages":"993 - 1042"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0049124120986201","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Methods & Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124120986201","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Researchers increasingly take advantage of the comparative case design to build theory, but the degree of case dependence is occasionally discussed and theorized. We suggest that the comparative case study design might be subject to an often underappreciated threat—dependence across cases—under certain conditions. Using research on innovation diffusion as an illustration, we explore the role of social linkages across cases when building theory through comparison and contrast between cases. We develop an agent-based simulation, grounded by comparative case research about innovation diffusion, as novel way to study the implications of case dependence in theory building using multiple-case study research. Our simulation results suggest that the degree of case dependence has a nontrivial bearing on innovation diffusion experienced by case entities, specifically when the researcher draws a few case entities operating in a highly interconnected industry. Under these conditions, overlooking the degree of case dependence might weaken newly built theory against commonly held standards of internal validity and external validity in inductive research. We conceptualize the issue of case dependence as a concern about researchers’ bounded rationality. Accordingly, we build on our findings to provide actionable advice aiming to alleviate this concern while being amendable to the variety of approaches to build theory from multiple cases in social sciences.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
理论建构、案例依赖与研究者的有限理性——以创新扩散研究为例
研究人员越来越多地利用比较案例设计来构建理论,但案例依赖程度偶尔被讨论和理论化。我们认为,在某些条件下,比较案例研究设计可能会受到经常被低估的跨案例威胁依赖的影响。本文以创新扩散研究为例,通过案例间的比较和对比,探讨了跨案例社会联系在理论构建中的作用。本文以创新扩散的案例比较研究为基础,提出了一种基于主体的模拟方法,作为研究案例依赖在多案例研究理论构建中的意义的新方法。我们的模拟结果表明,案例依赖程度对案例实体所经历的创新扩散具有重要影响,特别是当研究人员在一个高度互联的行业中选取几个案例实体时。在这种情况下,忽视案例依赖程度可能会削弱归纳研究中普遍存在的内部效度和外部效度标准。我们将案例依赖问题概念化为对研究人员有限理性的关注。因此,我们以我们的发现为基础,提供可操作的建议,旨在减轻这种担忧,同时可修改各种方法,从社会科学的多个案例中构建理论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: Sociological Methods & Research is a quarterly journal devoted to sociology as a cumulative empirical science. The objectives of SMR are multiple, but emphasis is placed on articles that advance the understanding of the field through systematic presentations that clarify methodological problems and assist in ordering the known facts in an area. Review articles will be published, particularly those that emphasize a critical analysis of the status of the arts, but original presentations that are broadly based and provide new research will also be published. Intrinsically, SMR is viewed as substantive journal but one that is highly focused on the assessment of the scientific status of sociology. The scope is broad and flexible, and authors are invited to correspond with the editors about the appropriateness of their articles.
期刊最新文献
Sharing Big Video Data: Ethics, Methods, and Technology Dynamics of Health Expectancy: An Introduction to the Multiple Multistate Method (MMM) Seeded Topic Models in Digital Archives: Analyzing Interpretations of Immigration in Swedish Newspapers, 1945–2019 A Primer on Deep Learning for Causal Inference Untapped Potential: Designed Digital Trace Data in Online Survey Experiments
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1