THEORY BUILDING FROM CASES: OPPORTUNITIES AND
CHALLENGES
KATHLEEN M. EISENHARDT
Stanford University
MELISSA E. GRAEBNER
University of Texas at Austin
The Academy of Management Journal has taken
the lead among major journals in spotlighting alter-
native methods that take advantage of rich empiri-
cal data. In a series of “From the Editor” commen-
taries, scholars cogently have explicated related
topics such as qualitative research (Gephart, 2004),
grounded theory building (Suddaby, 2006), the
value of richness (Weick, 2007) and the persuasive
power of the single case (Siggelkow, 2007). In this
commentary, we focus on the related research strat-
egy of theory building from cases, particularly mul-
tiple cases.
Scholars have used case studies to develop the-
ory about topics as diverse as group process (Ed-
mondson, Bohmer, & Pisano, 2001), internal organ-
ization (Galunic & Eisenhardt, 2001; Gilbert, 2005),
and strategy (Mintzberg & Waters, 1982). Classic
scholars (Chandler, 1962; Whyte, 1941) as well as
the authors of highly regarded AMJ papers (Dutton
& Dukerich, 1991; Sutton & Raphaeli, 1988) have
used the method. Indeed, papers that build theory
from cases are often regarded as the “most interest-
ing” research (Bartunek, Rynes, & Ireland, 2006)
and are among the most highly cited pieces in AMJ
(e.g., Eisenhardt, 1989a; Gersick, 1988), with im-
pact disproportionate to their numbers. Not sur-
prisingly then, the winning authors (Ferlie, Fitzger-
ald, Wood, & Hawkins, 2005; Gilbert, 2005) of the
most recent AMJ Best Article Award relied on this
method.
Building theory from case studies is a research
strategy that involves using one or more cases to
create theoretical constructs, propositions and/or
midrange theory from case-based, empirical evi-
dence (Eisenhardt, 1989b). Case studies are rich,
empirical descriptions of particular instances of a
phenomenon that are typically based on a variety of
data sources (Yin, 1994). Cases can be historical
accounts, such as Weick’s (1993) study of the Mann
Gulch fire, but they are more likely to be contem-
porary descriptions of recent events, such as Gil-
bert’s (2005) study of adaptation to discontinuous
environmental change by newspaper organizations.
The central notion is to use cases as the basis from
which to develop theory inductively. The theory is
emergent in the sense that it is situated in and
developed by recognizing patterns of relationships
among constructs within and across cases and their
underlying logical arguments.
Central to building theory from case studies is
replication logic (Eisenhardt, 1989b). That is, each
case serves as a distinct experiment that stands on
its own as an analytic unit. Like a series of related
laboratory experiments, multiple cases are discrete
experiments that serve as replications, contrasts,
and extensions to the emerging theory (Yin, 1994).
But while laboratory experiments isolate the phe-
nomena from their context, case studies emphasize
the rich, real-world context in which the phenom-
ena occur. The theory-building process occurs via
recursive cycling among the case data, emerging
theory, and later, extant literature. Although some-
times seen as “subjective,” well-done theory build-
ing from cases is surprisingly “objective,” because
its close adherence to the data keeps researchers
“honest.” The data provide the discipline that
mathematics does in formal analytic modeling.
A major reason for the popularity and relevance
of theory building from case studies is that it is
one of the best (if not the best) of the bridges from
rich qualitative evidence to mainstream deductive
research. Its emphasis on developing constructs,
measures, and testable theoretical propositions
makes inductive case research consistent with the
emphasis on testable theory within mainstream de-
ductive research. In fact, inductive and deductive
logics are mirrors of one another, with inductive
theory building from cases producing new theory
from data and deductive theory testing completing
the cycle by using data to test theory. Moreover,
since it is a theory-building approach that is deeply
embedded in rich empirical data, building theory
We appreciate helpful comments from Diane Bailey,
Steve Barley, Chris Bingham, Jason Davis, Nathan Furr,
and Ben Hallen as well as the sponsorship of the National
Science Foundation IOC Award #0621777 and the Stan-
ford Technology Ventures Program.

Academy of Management Journal
2007, Vol. 50, No. 1, 25–32.
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied,
emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express
written permission. Users may print, download or email articles for individual use only.
25

from cases is likely to produce theory that is accu-
rate, interesting, and testable. Thus, it is a natural
complement to mainstream deductive research.
But while theory building from cases is increas-
ingly prominent, challenges in writing publishable
manuscripts using this research strategy exist. Some
reviewers who work on large-scale, hypothesis-
testing research may misunderstand the method (e.g.,
expect random sampling), or simply regard their own
methods as superior. Some reviewers who work with
other research strategies that also use rich empirical
data (e.g., naturalistic inquiry) may emphasize thick
narrative descriptions but be less interested in gener-
ating testable and generalizable theory. Still other
reviewers may be sympathetic to research that is
based on rich empirical evidence but be confused by
the jumble of labels used to describe such research,
which include grounded theory building, qualitative
research, theory building from cases, and naturalistic
inquiry. Having been involved with numerous re-
search projects andwrittenmany papers that develop
theory from cases, we are particularly sympathetic to
authors. So, our purpose is to highlight the opportu-
nities that differentiate building theory from cases
from other research strategies, describe some of its
common challenges, and suggest possible antidotes.
Justifying Theory Building
Sound empirical research begins with strong
grounding in related literature, identifies a research
gap, and proposes research questions that address
the gap. But when using theory building from cases
as a research strategy, researchers also must take
the added step of justifying why the research ques-
tion is better addressed by theory-building rather
than theory-testing research. The implicit assump-
tion is that theory building from cases is less pre-
cise, objective, and rigorous than large-scale hy-
pothesis testing. Moreover, failure to convince
readers that a theory-building study is warranted in
the first few pages can sink a manuscript before
readers ever reach the findings. In other words,
readers may ask, So why is this an inductive study?
A key response to this challenge is to clarify why
the research question is significant, and why there
is no existing theory that offers a feasible answer.
Conflicting theories are not enough. Rather, it is
critical to convince readers that the research ques-
tion is crucial for organizations and/or theory, and
demonstrate that the existing research either does
not address the research question at all, or does so
in a way that is inadequate or likely to be untrue.
An example is early research on making fast stra-
tegic decisions (Eisenhardt, 1989a). The introduc-
tion makes a strong case that fast strategic decision
making is crucial for firm performance in high-
velocity environments, including an example of a
firm that died because its executives decided
slowly. The introduction then goes on to demon-
strate that the research literature has mostly ig-
nored this critical topic. The background section
describes several ideas from the literature that ad-
dress speed (albeit obliquely), but then shows that
the logic underlying these ideas is unconvincing.
For example, although some of the literature im-
plies that centralized strategic decision making
might be fast, centralization could not solve prob-
lems of access to relevant information, implemen-
tation, and confidence to decide in the face of un-
certainty. Thus, it is unlikely that fast decision
making is simply a matter of centralization per se.
The background section concludes by asking
whether a “snap decision” process could actually
be realistic.
The challenge of justifying inductive case re-
search partially depends on the nature of the re-
search question. For theory-driven research ques-
tions that extend existing theory (Lee, Mitchell, &
Sabylinski, 1999), a researcher has to frame the
research within the context of this theory and then
show how inductive theory building is necessary.
Typically, the research question is tightly scoped
within the context of an existing theory, and the
justification rests heavily on the ability of qualita-
tive data to offer insight into complex social pro-
cesses that quantitative data cannot easily reveal.
For example, Greenwood and Suddaby (2006) stud-
ied how a known instance of institutional change at
the center of a field occurred (i.e., promotion of
change by elite firms within the accounting profes-
sion). They justified their approach in terms of
extending institutional theory and the ability of
qualitative data to explicate the complex social pro-
cesses involved.
In contrast, for phenomenon-driven research
questions, a researcher has to frame the research in
terms of the importance of the phenomenon and
the lack of plausible existing theory. Here the re-
search question is broadly scoped to give the re-
searcher more flexibility. The justification rests on
the phenomenon’s importance, and the lack of vi-
able theory and empirical evidence. For example,
Bingham and Eisenhardt (2006) justified their
study of what executives learn when they engage in
a repeated organizational process (in their study,
internationalization) by observing that learning is a
ubiquitous process, and yet the vast empirical lit-
erature on learning ignores the content of what is
actually learned. More broadly, theory-building re-
search using cases typically answers research ques-
tions that address “how” and “why” in unexplored
26 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

research areas particularly well (Edmondson & Mc-
Manus, 2007). By contrast, the research strategy is
ill-equipped to address the questions “how often,”
and “how many,” and questions about the relative
empirical importance of constructs.
Theoretical Sampling of Cases
Another frequent challenge to theory building
from cases concerns case selection. Some readers
make the faulty assumption that the cases should
be representative of some population, as are data in
large-scale hypothesis testing research. In other
words, they ask, How can the theory generalize if
the cases aren’t representative?
A key response to this challenge is to clarify that
the purpose of the research is to develop theory, not
to test it, and so theoretical (not random or strati-
fied) sampling is appropriate. Theoretical sampling
simply means that cases are selected because they
are particularly suitable for illuminating and ex-
tending relationships and logic among constructs.
Again, just as laboratory experiments are not ran-
domly sampled from a population of experiments,
but rather, chosen for the likelihood that they will
offer theoretical insight, so too are cases sampled
for theoretical reasons, such as revelation of an
unusual phenomenon, replication of findings from
other cases, contrary replication, elimination of al-
ternative explanations, and elaboration of the emer-
gent theory.
Theoretical sampling of single cases is straight-
forward. They are chosen because they are unusu-
ally revelatory, extreme exemplars, or opportuni-
ties for unusual research access (Yin, 1994). For
example, Weick (1993) used an extreme case of lost
sensemaking in the wilderness fire-fighting disaster
at Mann Gulch; Galunic and Eisenhardt (1996,
2001) examined organizational adaptation in an ex-
emplar firm that was the highest performing tech-
nology-based corporation in the world for several
decades; and Dutton and Dukerich (1991) studied
the New York Port Authority, where they had un-
usual access through friends. Thus, single-case re-
search typically exploits opportunities to explore a
significant phenomenon under rare or extreme
circumstances.
But while single-case studies can richly describe
the existence of a phenomenon (Siggelkow, 2007),
multiple-case studies typically provide a stronger
base for theory building (Yin, 1994). Again, to use
the analogy of laboratory experiments, the theory is
better grounded, more accurate, and more general-
izable (all else being equal) when it is based on
multiple case experiments. Multiple cases enable
comparisons that clarify whether an emergent find-
ing is simply idiosyncratic to a single case or con-
sistently replicated by several cases (Eisenhardt,
1991). Multiple cases also create more robust the-
ory because the propositions are more deeply
grounded in varied empirical evidence. Constructs
and relationships are more precisely delineated be-
cause it is easier to determine accurate definitions
and appropriate levels of construct abstraction
from multiple cases. For example, Brown and
Eisenhardt (1997) found that, although some firms
used alliances to experiment with the future, others
used futurists and exploratory products. With mul-
tiple cases, the authors set an appropriate level of
abstraction (i.e., probes) that was more accurate
than the individual instantiations (e.g., alliances,
exploratory products). Multiple cases also enable
broader exploration of research questions and the-
oretical elaboration. For example, Brown and
Eisenhardt (1998) added successful and unsuccess-
ful turnaround cases that enabled them to add fur-
ther longitudinal elements to their theory. Because
case numbers are typically small, a few additional
cases can significantly affect the quality of the
emergent theory. For example, adding three cases
to a single-case study is modest in terms of num-
bers, but offers four times the analytic power. Thus,
theory building from multiple cases typically
yields more robust, generalizable, and testable the-
ory than single-case research.
But although multiple cases are likely to result in
better theory, theoretical sampling is more compli-
cated. The choice is based less on the uniqueness of
a given case, and more on the contribution to the-
ory development within the set of cases. That is,
multiple cases are chosen for theoretical reasons
such as replication, extension of theory, contrary
replication, and elimination of alternative explana-
tions (Yin, 1994). For example, Graebner and Eisen-
hardt (2004) studied acquisition from the seller per-
spective by examining three replicated cases in
which the executives sold their companies, a con-
trary replication in which executives could have
sold their companies but did not, and then further
cases in different industries that explored industry-
level explanations. A particularly important theo-
retical sampling approach is “polar types,” in
which a researcher samples extreme (e.g., very high
and very low performing) cases in order to more
easily observe contrasting patterns in the data. Al-
though such an approach can surprise reviewers
because the resulting theory is so consistently sup-
ported by the empirical evidence, this sampling
leads to very clear pattern recognition of the central
constructs, relationships, and logic of the focal
phenomenon.
2007 27Eisenhardt and Graebner

Dealing with Interview Data
Case studies can accommodate a rich variety of
data sources, including interviews, archival data,
survey data, ethnographies, and observations. For
example, Hargadon and Sutton (1997) combined
observations of brainstorming sessions, interviews
with corporate actors, and ethnographies of two
projects in their case study of routine innovation at
Ideo. But as research incorporates more cases and
moves away from everyday phenomena such as
work practices to intermittent and strategic phe-
nomena such as acquisitions and strategic decision
making, interviews often become the primary data
source. Interviews are a highly efficient way to
gather rich, empirical data, especially when the
phenomenon of interest is highly episodic and in-
frequent. But interviews also often provoke a
“knee-jerk” reaction that the data are biased in
which impression management and retrospective
sensemaking are deemed the prime culprits. The
prototypical reader asks, Is the theory just retro-
spective sensemaking by image-conscious
informants?
The challenge of interview data is best mitigated
by data collection approaches that limit bias. A key
approach is using numerous and highly knowl-
edgeable informants who view the focal phenom-
ena from diverse perspectives. These informants
canincludeorganizationalactors fromdifferenthier-
archical levels, functional areas, groups, and geog-
raphies, as well as actors from other relevant organ-
izations and outside observers such as market
analysts. It is unlikely that these varied informants
informants will engage in convergent retrospective
sensemaking and/or impression management. For
example, in our study of acquisitions from the
seller perspective, Graebner and Eisenhardt (2004)
we relied on interviews with executives from two
hierarchical levels at the selling firms, executives
from two hierarchical levels at the buying firms,
board members from both the buying and selling
firms, and investment bankers who provided back-
ground information about M&A.
Another key approach to mitigating bias is to
combine retrospective and real-time cases (Leonard-
Barton, 1990). Retrospective cases rely on inter-
views (and archival data) that build up the number
and depth of cases efficiently and so enable a re-
searcher to cover more informants and include
more cases. Such interviews are particularly accu-
rate when the focal events are recent. In contrast,
real-time cases employ longitudinal data collection
of interviews and, often, observations, both of
which help to mitigate retrospective sensemaking
and impression management.
A more subtle challenge arises from the confu-
sion between qualitative data and qualitative re-
search. Theory-building cases usually rely exten-
sively on qualitative data from interviews and other
sources, such as observations, historical books, ar-
chives, and so forth. This research is often termed
“qualitative” simply because it relies significantly
on qualitative data. But qualitative research can
also refer to the use of qualitative data in research
strategies other than organizing data into cases and
using replication logic to build theory. For exam-
ple, Elsbach and Kramer (2003) accumulated qual-
itative data on individual “pitches” in their study
of face-to-face interviews in Hollywood, but they
pooled their data rather than organize it into cases.
Adding to the confusion, some scholars have a very
specific definition of what constitutes “qualitative
research” that goes well beyond the type of data.
For example, Gephart (2004) described qualitative
research as “multimethod research that uses an in-
terpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject mat-
ter (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994)” and “addresses ques-
tions about how social experience is created and
given meaning” (Gephart, 2004: 454–455). Accord-
ing to this view, qualitative research is highly de-
scriptive, emphasizes the social construction of re-
ality, and focuses on revealing how extant theory
operates in particular examples. This view is dif-
ferent in terms of research activities, goals, and
epistemology from the more objective and positiv-
ist stance of theory building from cases as well as
from other research strategies also termed “qualita-
tive.” The key implication is that some readers will
confuse different kinds of research that seem simi-
lar because they use qualitative data, and these
readers may be disappointed if the research does
not then match their understanding of “qualitative
research.”
A straightforward approach for coping with the
varied meanings of “qualitative research” is to
avoid the term. Rather, clarify the research strategy
being used, and contrast it with other “qualitative”
approaches with differing epistemological assump-
tions. Specifically, when inducting theory from
cases, be explicit about the theory-building goal
and to liberally use footnotes that sharpen the dis-
tinctions among the multiple meanings of qualita-
tive research. The key here is to convey the theory-
building strategy clearly while avoiding confusion,
philosophical pitfalls, and unrealistic reader
expectations.
Presenting Empirical Evidence
A critical aspect of empirical research is present-
ing the evidence from which the theory of interest
28 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

was inducted. In large-scale deductive studies,
there is a widespread norm of presenting theory
and then empirical evidence in compact numerical
tables that summarize statistical analyses of large
amounts of data. But case data cannot be so tightly
summarized, because much of it consists of rich
qualitative detail.
In a single-case study, the challenge of presenting
rich qualitative data is readily addressed by simply
presenting a relatively complete rendering of the
story within the text. The story typically consists of
narrative that is interspersed with quotations from
key informants and other supporting evidence. The
story is then intertwined with the theory to dem-
onstrate the close connection between empirical
evidence and emergent theory. This intertwining
keeps both theory and evidence at the forefront of
the paper. Gersick (1994), Hargadon and Douglas
(2001), and Mintzberg and Waters (1982) are exem-
plars of this approach.1
But presenting a relatively complete and un-
broken narrative of each case is infeasible for
multiple-case research, particularly as the number
of cases increases. If the researcher relates the nar-
rative of each case, then the theory is lost and the
text balloons. So the challenge in multiple-case
research is to stay within spatial constraints while
also conveying both the emergent theory that is the
research objective and the rich empirical evidence
that supports the theory. Coping with the trade-off
between rich story and well-grounded theory is
easier to do in a multicase book or a single-case
paper. But in journal articles, multicase researchers
face a particularly difficult trade-off between the-
ory and empirical richness. It can be especially
challenging to satisfy readers who expect the exten-
sive narratives of single-case research. They ask,
Where’s the rich story?
The best way to address this challenge of “better
stories vs. better theories” is to develop a theory in
sections or by distinct propositions in such a way
that each is supported by empirical evidence. Thus,
the overarching organizing frame of the paper is the
theory, and each part of the theory is demonstrated
by evidence from at least some of the cases. But
since it is generally not realistic to support every
theoretical proposition with every case within a
text itself, the use of extensive tables and other
visual devices that summarize the related case ev-
idence are central to signaling the depth and detail
of empirical grounding. In other words, the use of
summary tables and aids that summarize the case
evidence complements the selective story descrip-
tions of the text and further emphasizes the rigor
and depth of the empirical grounding of the theory.
A separate table that summarizes the evidence for
each theoretical construct is a particularly effective
way to present the case evidence. These “construct
tables” summarize the case evidence and indicate
how the focal construct is “measured,” thus in-
creasing the “testability” of the theory and creating
a particularly strong bridge from the qualitative
evidence to theory-testing research. Graebner
(2004), Gilbert (2005), and Zott and Huy (2007) are
excellent examples of blending construct tables
with selected text descriptions.
Summarizing case evidence within tables and
organizing the text around the theory can be, how-
ever, disappointing to readers who are expecting
the “richness” of detailed narratives from the em-
pirical data. This is particularly likely among read-
ers whose research predilections favor description
over theory. So, although it may seem trivial, it is
usually helpful to remind reviewers that the objec-
tive is theory development. More significantly, it is
critical to invest in developing well-crafted tables,
appendixes, and visual aids to demonstrate the the-
ory’s underlying empirical support and the antici-
pated richness of the case data, and to tie those
tables clearly to the text.
Writing the Emergent Theory
The objective of building theory from cases is
theory. But unlike in large-scale hypothesis-
testing research, there is no “sure-to-please” stan-
dard template for writing emergent theory in
theory-building research. Since different readers
have their own preferences, they often ask, Why did
you format the theory this way?
A useful way to cope with this challenge is to
write the theory in multiple ways. First, sketch the
emergent theory in the introduction. Then, in the
body of paper, write each proposition (implicitly or
explicitly stated), and link it to the supporting em-
pirical evidence for each construct and for the pro-
posed relationship between the constructs. When
the research is well done, the propositions will be
consistent with most (or even all) of the cases be-
cause the researcher has effectively “pattern-
matched” between theory and data. It is also crucial
to write the underlying theoretical arguments that
provide the logical link between the constructs
within a proposition. These arguments can be
1 An alternative approach is to present the story and
then the theory. But this approach moves the theory off
center stage and makes the empirical grounding of the
theory less apparent. Nonetheless, it is a reasonable and
common approach.
2007 29Eisenhardt and Graebner

drawn from case evidence (e.g., an informant ex-
plaining the logic) and/or from more detached
logic. Finally, provide a visual theory summary
such as a “boxes and arrows” diagram or summary
table. Eisenhardt (1989a), Gilbert (2005), and
Maurer and Ibers (2006) offer exemplars of the mul-
tiple ways of writing theory within a single paper.
Using these multiple ways to present the theory is
often a safe starting point for initial manuscript
submissions.
A more subtle challenge arises from confusion
about the meaning of “grounded theory build-
ing.” For some scholars, grounded theory build-
ing simply means creating theory by observing
patterns within systematically collected empiri-
cal data. This view often includes some notion of
recursively iterating between (and thus con-
stantly comparing) theory and data during anal-
ysis, and theoretically sampling cases (as de-
scribed earlier). As Langley (1999) noted, this is a
widely held view of grounded theory building. In
this view, the quality of the theory and the
strength of its empirical grounding are more cen-
tral to research quality than the specifics of the
theory-building process.
But for other scholars, grounded theory building
has a more precise meaning that stems from the
original focus of Glaser and Strauss (1967) on the
interpretation of meaning by social actors. For ex-
ample, Suddaby described grounded theory build-
ing as “most suited to efforts to understand the
process by which actors construct meaning out of
intersubjective experience” (Suddaby, 2006: 634).
Others go further to emphasize elaborate processes
(and terminology) for how researchers should
gather field data and discover theory using a hier-
archical structure of categories (Corbin & Strauss,
1990). Constant comparison and theoretical sam-
pling take on precise meanings: “constant compar-
ison” means simultaneous collection and analysis
of data, and “theoretical sampling” means that de-
cisions about which data to collect next are deter-
mined by the theory in progress (Suddaby, 2006).
In this view, adherence to specific grounded theory
building processes is important in judging research
quality. But strict adherence can also result in the-
ory with limited generalizability (Langley, 1999)
and idiosyncratic path dependence on the particu-
lar empirical starting point.
As when coping with the multiple meanings
of “qualitative research,” it is often helpful to deal
with the multiple meanings of “grounded theory
building” by avoiding the term unless one is ac-
tually using the Glaser and Strauss (1967) ap-
proach. It is also helpful to preempt misunder-
standing by engaging in systematic data collection
and theory development processes that are re-
ported with transparent description, particularly
regarding how the theory was inducted from the
data (e.g., description of cross-case comparison
techniques). The key here is to convey the rigor,
creativity, and open-mindedness of the research
processes while sidestepping confusion and philo-
sophical pitfalls.
Finally, a surprising challenge can arise from
readers who are disappointed by parsimonious
theory. Particularly when readers are more fa-
miliar with the idiosyncratic detail of some single-
case research, they may expect the complicated
theory that can arise from such cases. Somewhat
surprisingly, single cases can enable the creation
of more complicated theories than multiple cases,
because single-case researchers can fit their theory
exactly to the many details of a particular case.
In contrast, multiple-case researchers retain only
the relationships that are replicated across most
or all of the cases. Since there are typically fewer
of these relationships than there are details in a
richly observed single case, the resulting theory is
often more parsimonious (and also more robust
and generalizable). A key approach to dealing with
this challenge is to ensure that the theory fully
exploits the available evidence in terms of pos-
sible nuances and alternative interpretations. It
also helps to remind readers that parsimony, ro-
bustness, and generalizability characterize superior
theory.
Conclusion
Theory building from case studies is an increas-
ingly popular and relevant research strategy that
forms the basis of a disproportionately large num-
ber of influential studies. But like the adherents of
any research method, its adherents face some pre-
dictable challenges, some of which have, ironi-
cally, emerged precisely because research relying
on rich qualitative data is becoming more common.
The good news is that these often very legitimate
challenges can be mitigated through precise lan-
guage and thoughtful research design: careful jus-
tification of theory building, theoretical sampling
of cases, interviews that limit informant bias, rich
presentation of evidence in tables and appendixes,
and clear statement of theoretical arguments. The
result is fresh theory that bridges well from rich
qualitative evidence to mainstream deductive re-
search. This is the hallmark of building from case
studies.
30 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

REFERENCES
Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, R. D. 2006. What
makes management research interesting and why
does it matter? Academy of Management Journal,
49: 9–15.
Bingham, C. B., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2006. Unveiling the
creation and content of strategic processes: How and
what firms learn from heterogeneous experience.
Proceedings of the Academy of Management.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 1997. The art of contin-
uous change: Linking complexity theory and time-
paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 1–35.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 1998. Competing on
the edge: Strategy as structured chaos. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Chandler, A. D. 1962. Strategy and structure. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. 1990. Grounded theory research:
Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qualita-
tive Sociology, 13: 3–21.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. 1994. Introduction: Enter-
ing the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin
& Y. W. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research: 1–17. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. 1991. Keeping an eye on
the mirror: The role of image and identity in organ-
izational adaptation. Academy of Management
Journal, 34: 517–554.
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. 2001.
Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technol-
ogy implementation in hospitals. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 46: 685–716.
Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. 2007. Methodolog-
ical fit in organizational field research. Academy of
Management Review: In press.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989a. Making fast strategic decisions
in high-velocity environments. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 32: 543–576.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989b. Building theories from case
study research. Academy of Management Review,
14: 532–550.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1991. Better stories and better con-
structs: The case for rigor and comparative logic.
Academy of Management Review, 16: 620–627.
Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. 2003. Assessing creativity
in Hollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-
process model of creativity judgments. Academy of
Management Journal, 46: 283–301.
Ferlie, E., Fitzgerald, L., Wood, M., & Hawkins, C. 2005.
The nonspread of innovations: The mediating role of
professionals. Academy of Management Journal,
48: 117–134.
Galunic, D. C., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 1996. The evolution of
intracorporate domains: Divisional charter losses in
high-technology, multidivisional corporations. Or-
ganization Science, 7: 255–282.
Galunic, D. C., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2001. Architectural
innovation and modular corporate forms. Academy
of Management Journal, 6: 1229–1249.
Gephart, R. P. 2004. Qualitative research and the Acad-
emy of Management Journal. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 47: 454–462.
Gersick, C. J. G. 1988. Time and transition in work teams.
Toward a new model of group development. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 31: 9–41.
Gersick, C. J. G. 1994. Pacing strategic change. Academy
of Management Journal, 9–45.
Gilbert, C. G. 2005. Unbundling the structure of inertia:
Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 48: 741–763.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. 1967. The discovery of
grounded theory: Strategies in qualitative re-
search. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson.
Graebner, M. E. 2004. Momentum and serendipity: How
acquired leaders create value in the integration of
technology firms. Strategic Management Journal,
25: 751–777.
Graebner, M. E., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2004. The seller’s
side of the story: Acquisition as courtship and gov-
ernance as syndicate in entrepreneurial firms. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 49: 366–403.
Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. 2006. Institutional entre-
preneurship in mature fields: The Big Five account-
ing firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49:
27–48.
Hargadon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. 2001. When innovations
meet institutions: Edison and the design of the elec-
tric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46:
476–501.
Hargadon, A. B., & Sutton, R. I. 1997. Technology broker-
ing and innovation in a product development firm.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 716–749.
Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process
data. Academy of Management Review, 4: 691–710.
Lee, T. L., Mitchell, T. R., & Sablynski, C. J. 1999. Qual-
itative research in organizational and vocational psy-
chology: 1979–1999. Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior, 55: 161–187.
Leonard-Barton, D. 1990. A dual methodology for case
studies: Synergistic use of a longitudinal single site
with replicated multiple sites. Organization Sci-
ence, 1: 1–19.
Maurer, I., & Ebers, M. 2006. Dynamics of social capital
and their performance implications: Lessons from
biotechnology start-ups. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 51: 262–292.
Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. 1982. Tracking strategy in
an entrepreneurial firm. Academy of Management
Journal, 25: 465–499.
2007 31Eisenhardt and Graebner

Siggelkow, N. 2007. Persuasion with case studies. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 50: 20–24.
Suddaby, R. 2006. What grounded theory is not. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 49: 633–642.
Sutton, R. I., & Raphaeli, A. 1988. Untangling the rela-
tionship between displayed emotions and organiza-
tional sales: The case of convenience stores. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 31: 461–487.
Weick, K. E. 1993. The collapse of sensemaking in organ-
izations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 38: 628–652.
Weick, K. E. 2007. The generative properties of richness.
Academy of Management Journal, 50: 14–19.
Whyte, W. F. 1941. Corner boys: A study in clique be-
havior. American Journal of Sociology, 46: 647–
664.
Yin, R. K. 1994. Case study research: Design and meth-
ods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Zott, C., & Huy, Q. N. 2007. How entrepreneurs use
symbolic management to acquire resources. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly: In press.
Kathleen M. Eisenhardt (kme@stanford.edu) is the Stan-
ford W. Ascherman M.D. Professor of Strategy and Or-
ganizations in the Department of Management Science
and Engineering and the codirector of the Stanford Tech-
nology Ventures Program, Stanford University. She re-
ceived her Ph.D. from Stanford’s Graduate School of
Business. Her research interests include alliance and net-
work processes, strategy as simple rules, and competitive
power dynamics in technology-based entrepreneurial
and established companies. She studies these issues us-
ing both theory building from cases and simulation
methods.
Melissa E. Graebner (melissa.graebner@mccombs.
utexas.edu) is an assistant professor of management at
the McCombs School of Business in the University of
Texas at Austin. She received her Ph.D. in management
science and engineering from Stanford University. Her
research interests include corporate governance, trust,
and strategic decision making. She examines these issues
in the contexts of mergers and acquisitions and entrepre-
neurial firms.
32 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal