In search of theory? The workplace case study tradition in the 21st century

• Published date: 01 May 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12285
• Author: Patrick McGovern
• Date: 01 May 2020

In search of theory? The workplace

case study tradition in the 21st century

Patrick McGovern

ABSTRACT

Workplace case studies have been valued by some for their ability to advance theory

while others dismiss them as little more than descriptive stories. This paper presents a

detailed content analysis of case study articles to assess the relative balance between

theory, conceptual analysis and description. Drawing on a random sample of papers

(n= 173) published in leading journals, I find that fewer than one in seven are descrip-

tive papers while only one in ten are theory oriented. Using three criteria, I identify

exemplars of theoretical and conceptual analysis and show how these may be used to

advance the field.

1 INTRODUCTION

Towards the end of a lengthy review of the field of industrial relations, Roy Adams

concluded that despite some cross-fertilisation, the area remained ‘one of isolated

tribes of labor researchers carrying out their work either in ignorance of, or in delib-

erate disregard for, the work of other groups’(1993: 150). One example of this divi-

sion is the very differing views held about the role and nature of workplace

case study research. Some scholars, usually of a quantitative orientation, view case

studies as essentially descriptive exercises. In the United States, the Wisconsin School

of institutional labour economics that emerged after the First World War was

criticised by later generations of labour economists for its reliance on an inductive

case study approach to gathering evidence. In the words of Ronald Coase, ‘without

a theory they had nothing to pass on except a mass of descriptive material waiting

for a theory, or a fire’(Boyer and Smith, 2001: 201). It must be admitted that this em-

phasis on institutional fact-finding and description was more than a matter of method

as Hugh Clegg, a leading figure in the Oxford School of industrial relations, famously

remarked some decades later that ‘an ounce of fact was worth a pound of theory’

(Brown, 1998: 849).

By contrast, pleas for more and better theory in industrial relations have included

calls for greater use of inductive case study research because of its ability to generate

theoretical insights through the intensive observation of workplace interaction

(Brown and Wright, 1994; Cappelli, 1985: 108; Godard, 1994: 11–12). Indeed it is

well known that case studies are the dominant form of research within the Labour

Process tradition that self-consciously presents itself as a theory building project

❒Patrick McGovern, Department of Sociology, London School of Economics and Political Science,

London, UK. Correspondence should be addressed to Patrick McGovern, Department of Sociology,

London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.

Email: p.mcgovern@lse.ac.uk

Industrial Relations Journal 51:3, 136–152

ISSN 0019-8692

© 2020 The Authors. Industrial Relations Journal published by Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribu-

tion and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

(Edwards, 2007: 19; Thompson and Smith, 2009: 258). Furthermore, organisational

scholars who subscribe to critical realism claim that the case study is the basic design

for realist research. Put simply, their argument is that the goal of research should be

to identify sequences of causation or causal mechanisms and case studies are, from

their perspective, ideal for that task (Ackroyd and Karlsson, 2014: 24).

Regardless of whether or not we accept that the development and testing of theory

is the primary task of the social sciences (King et al., 1994: 19–23), it is still of critical

importance that we examine the intellectual thrust of the research that is currently un-

dertaken. Though plenty has been written about what qualitative case study re-

searchers should do, this paper addresses the empirical question of what it is that

these researchers actually do when integrating theory with empirical evidence. This

paper presents the first systematic survey of contemporary workplace case study

research in order to examine the kind of studies that are undertaken and to identify

possible models for future research. Specifically, I examine the amount of workplace

research that (i) draws on theory to frame research questions; (ii) uses those questions

to select cases; and (iii) discusses the implications for theory in the conclusions. Using

these criteria, I then identify and discuss exemplars of theory-oriented studies while

also highlighting examples of a previously ignored type of case study, namely,

concept-led studies.

2 THE ROLE OF THEORY IN WORKPLACE CASE STUDY RESEARCH

Proponents of case studies as a means of developing theory within the fields of indus-

trial relations and the sociology of work draw on three distinct arguments. The first,

which can be traced back to the early decades of the 20th century, concerns the

long-running debate with economics over the nature and dynamics of the employment

relationship. Both the early institutionalist economists in US labour relations and the

sociologists associated with the Human Relations perspective objected to the depiction

of workers as individualistic utility maximisers pursuing narrowly conceived economic

interests guided only by the invisible hand of market forces. Instead, they advocated a

‘go and see’approach of fieldwork-based case studies on the basis that this provided a

more realistic account of the social norms and customs that shaped behaviour on the

factory floor. In doing so, they would practise a form of inductive theory building

using propositions that were based on the regularities they observed in the behaviour

of work groups, workplaces and trade unions (Kaufman, 2004: 98–101).

Writers who have drawn on institutionalist perspectives would subsequently cham-

pion this approach as they challenged economic conceptions of labour markets from

a different direction. Labour Process scholars, along with institutional labour econo-

mists, argue that capital hired only the capacity to work rather than a fixed quantity

of work when hiring workers (Thompson, 1983; Nolan, 2012). This fundamental in-

determinacy means that employment contracts are always incomplete and so the em-

ployer has to organise a labour process that turns this capacity to work into labour

that produces value in the form of commodities and services. However, when

confronted with the more mind-numbing forms of work associated with the scientific

management and the rise of the factory system, Labour Process scholars highlighted

the tendency for workers to resist a labour process that strips them of their autonomy

and skills (Edwards, 1979). In the context of this ‘contested terrain’, Paul Edwards, a

leading figure in the Labour Process tradition, insists that ‘detailed case studies and

137In search of theory?

© 2020 The Authors. Industrial Relations Journal published by Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd