AljanovaN., ShaktiS., & BokybayevN. (2025). Leveraging the shift in the geocultural landscape towards internationalizing cultural entrepreneurship. FIIB Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/23197145251313833
2.
AlvessonM., & SköldbergK. (2017). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. Sage Publications.
3.
ArmitageA., & Keeble-RamsayD. (2009). The rapid structured literature review as a research strategy. Online Submission, 6(4), 27–38.
4.
BansalP., & CorleyK. (2011). The coming of age for qualitative research: Embracing the diversity of qualitative methods. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60262792
5.
BansalP., SmithW. K., & VaaraE. (2018). New ways of seeing through qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1189–1195. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.4004
6.
BennettA., & ElmanC. (2006). Qualitative research: Recent developments in case study methods. Annual Review of Political Science, 9(1), 455–476.
7.
BettisR. A., GambardellaA., HelfatC., & MitchellW. (2015). Qualitative empirical research in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 36(5), 637–639.
8.
BreckenridgeJ., & JonesD. (2009). Demystifying theoretical sampling in grounded theory research. Grounded Theory Review, 8(2), 113–126.
9.
CarcaryM. (2009). The research audit trial—enhancing trustworthiness in qualitative inquiry. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 7(1), 11–24.
10.
CarlileP. R., & ChristensenC. M. (2005). The cycles of theory building in management research. Division of Research, Harvard Business School.
11.
ChatterjeeA., GhoshA., & LecaB. (2023). Double weaving: A bottom-up process of connecting locations and scales to mitigate grand challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 66(3), 797–828.
12.
ChiaR. (2002). Philosophy and research. In PartingtonD. (Ed.), Essential skills for management research (pp. 1–19). Sage Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848605305.n1
13.
ClausL., GreenwoodR., & MgooJ. (2021). Institutional translation gone wrong: The case of villages for Africa in rural Tanzania. Academy of Management Journal, 64(5), 1497–1526.
14.
CloutierC., & LangleyA. (2020). What makes a process theoretical contribution?Organization Theory, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787720902473
15.
DayC., & KoivuK. L. (2019). Finding the question: A puzzle-based approach to the logic of discovery. Journal of Political Science Education, 15(3), 377–386.
16.
DorobantuS., GruberM., RavasiD., & WellmanN. (2024). The AMJ management research canvas: A tool for conducting and reporting empirical research. Academy of Management Journal, 67(5), 1163–1174.
17.
Dyer JrW. G., & WilkinsA. L. (1991). Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 613–619.
18.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
19.
EisenhardtK. M. (2021). What is the Eisenhardt Method, really?Strategic Organization, 19(1), 147–160.
20.
EisenhardtK. M., & GraebnerM. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.
21.
FlyvbjergB. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.
22.
FuschP., FuschG. E., & NessL. R. (2018). Denzin’s paradigm shift: Revisiting triangulation in qualitative research. Journal of Sustainable Social Change, 10(1), 2.
23.
FuschP. I., & NessL. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408–1416. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2281
24.
GehmanJ., GlaserV. L., EisenhardtK. M., GioiaD., LangleyA., & CorleyK. G. (2018). Finding theory–method fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory building. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(3), 284–300.
25.
GeorgeA. L., & BennettA. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.
26.
GibbertM., & RuigrokW. (2010). The ‘’what’ and ‘how’ of case study rigor: Three strategies based on published work. Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), 710–737.
27.
GioiaD. A., CorleyK. G., & HamiltonA. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.
28.
GlaserB. G., & StraussA. L. (2017). Theoretical sampling. In DenzinN. K. (Ed.), Sociological methods (pp. 105–114). Routledge.
29.
GoyalM., SanthanamS., & RavindranV. (2024). Desk Rejections: Why, how, and what next? In JoshiP. B., ChuriP. P., & PandeyM. (Eds.), Scientific publishing ecosystem: An author-editor-reviewer axis (pp. 195–202). Springer.
30.
HancockD. R., AlgozzineB., & LimJ. H. (2021). Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.
31.
HarleyB., & CornelissenJ. (2022). Rigor with or without templates? The pursuit of methodological rigor in qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 239–261.
32.
HartleyJ. (2004). What is a case study. In CassellC. & SymonG. (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research. Sage Publications.
33.
HaynesK. (2012). Reflexivity in qualitative research. In SymonG., & CassellC. (Eds.), Qualitative organizational research: Core methods and current challenges ( pp. 72–89). Sage Publications.
34.
HodkinsonP., & HodkinsonH. (2001, December5–7). The strengths and limitations of case study research [Paper presentation]. Learning and Skills Development Agency Conference, Cambridge, UK.
35.
HowellK. E. (2012). An introduction to the philosophy of methodology. Sage Publications.
36.
LaiD., & RoccuR. (2019). Case study research and critical IR: The case for the extended case methodology. International Relations, 33(1), 67–87.
37.
LangleyA. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.
38.
LangleyA., SmallmanC., TsoukasH., & Van de VenA. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1–13.
39.
LockeE. A. (2007). The case for inductive theory building. Journal of Management, 33(6), 867–890.
40.
LockeK. (2011). Field research practice in management and organization studies: Reclaiming its tradition of discovery. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 613–652.
41.
MarkeeN. (2013). Emic and etic in qualitative research. In ChapelleC. A. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0366
42.
MontiesV. (2022). Exiting the field: When does an ethnography finish? In PandellJ., SutherlandN., & GaggiottiH. (Eds.), Organizational ethnography (pp. 157–169). Routledge.
43.
NicholsonJ. D., LaPlacaP., Al-AbdinA., BreeseR., & KhanZ. (2018). What do introduction sections tell us about the intent of scholarly work: A contribution on contributions. Industrial Marketing Management, 73, 206–219.
44.
NyimbiliF., & NyimbiliL. (2024). Types of purposive sampling techniques with their examples and application in qualitative research studies. British Journal of Multidisciplinary and Advanced Studies, 5(1), 90–99.
45.
O’RiainS. (2009). Extending the ethnographic case study. In ByrneD. & RaginC. C. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of case-based methods (pp. 289–306). Sage Publications.
46.
OliverC., NesbitS., & KellyN. (2013). Dissolving dualisms: How two positivists engaged with non-positivist qualitative methodology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12(1), 180–194.
PiekkariR., & WelchC. (2018). The case study in management research: Beyond the positivist legacy of Eisenhardt and Yin. The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods (pp. 345–358). Sage Publications.
PrattM. G. (2009). From the editors: For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5). https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.44632557
51.
RamdhaniM. A., & RamdhaniA. (2014). Verification of research logical framework based on literature review. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, 3(2), 1–9.
52.
RanaS. (2022). Do you struggle to share your industry experiences with academic journals? Suggestions and way forward. FIIB Business Review, 11(4), 367–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/23197145221140634
53.
ReineckeJ., & AnsariS. (2015a). What is a “fair” price? Ethics as sensemaking. Organization Science, 26(3), 867–888.
54.
ReineckeJ., & AnsariS. (2015b). When times collide: Temporal brokerage at the intersection of markets and developments. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 618–648.
55.
RidderH.-G., HoonC., & McCandlessA. (2009). The theoretical contribution of case study research to the field of strategy and management. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, 5, 137–175. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-8387(2009)0000005007
56.
RothW.-M. (2015). Rigorous data analysis: Beyond ‘anything goes’. Springer.
57.
RuleP., & JohnV. M. (2015). A necessary dialogue: Theory in case study research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915611575
58.
SandbergJ., & AlvessonM. (2011). Ways of constructing research questions: Gap-spotting or problematization?Organization, 18(1), 23–44.
59.
ShawI. (2023). Ethics and the practice of qualitative research. InResearch and social work in time and place (pp. 277–288). Routledge.
60.
ShroffA. (2024). Integrating innovation and virtue: Strategic responses of private organizations amidst environmental shocks. FIIB Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/23197145241304274
61.
SiggelkowN. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24.
62.
SimonM. K., & GoesJ. (2013). Scope, limitations, and delimitations. InDissertations and scholarly research: Recipes for success. Create Space Independent Publishing Platform.
63.
SmithK. W., ErezM., JarvenpaaS., LewisM. W., & TraceyP. (2017). Adding complexity to theories of paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change: Introduction to organization studies. Special issue on paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 303–317.
64.
SwanbornP. (2010). Case study research: What, why and how?Sage Publications.
65.
TadajewskiM., & HewerP. (2011). Intellectual contributions and ‘gap-spotting’. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(5–6), 449–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2011.562364
66.
UrquhartC., LehmannH., & MyersM. D. (2010). Putting the ‘theory’ back into grounded theory: Guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems. Information Systems Journal, 20(4), 357–381.
67.
WattD. (2007). On becoming a qualitative researcher: The value of reflexivity. Qualitative Report, 12(1), 82–101.
68.
WeickK. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 385–390.
69.
YinR. K. (2003). Designing case studies. Qualitative Research Methods, 5(14), 359–386.
70.
YinR. K. (2018). Case study research and applications. Sage Publications.