C ASE STUDY AS A RESEARCH STRATEGY

position of English as a lingua franca of business, these can be especially significant for international companies when the language at the core of an assimilation strategy or an official language law is not English. This concludes the theoretical part of this study, and we now turn to methodology.

3.1.1 Alternative case study approaches

Welch et al. (forthcoming) argue that according to the predominant view, case studies have been considered to only suit inductive theory building. The authors emphasize the potential of A) incorporating context into case studies and B) generating causal explanations as factors that have been thought incompatible in the past. However, as presented in the above discussion on context, IB by definition entails the examination of different national contexts, and in order to produce theories with more explanatory value, the effects of context should be accounted for. Welch at al. posit that by focusing more on these ignored dimensions, IB research has the potential to reach a higher lever of case theorizing.

In their forthcoming article, Welch et al. present three alternatives to traditional inductive theory building. Firstly, case study can be seen as a natural experiment for confirming or developing an already existing theory. Interpretive sensemaking takes a step further to acknowledge the value of contextualization (discussed in section 2.1.2) to the development of sound theories. These two philosophies are however criticized for forcing a choice between a robust, internally valid theory and rich description. In addition, IB is argued to benefit from a more diverse approach to building theories, and a more pluralistic ideology is called for, again implying a greater need to include context into research. The authors consequently propose a third alternative: contextualized explanation. The four approaches’ key aims, results, and how they relate in terms of how they deal with contextualization and causal explanation is depicted in Figure 3. As we see, unlike the other three methods, contextualized explanation does not aim at producing theories that are generalizable outside the context in which they were shaped. This allows for a more profound and detailed focus on the context and its effects, while at the same time analyzing causalities. Contextualized explanation is discussed in more detail next.

Figure 3. Approaches to case studies (modified from Welch et al., forthcoming)

3.1.2 Contextualized explanation

Welch et al. recognize that the scientific community has widely overlooked the potential of case studies as generators of causal explanations. Because theory is seen as something general that can be used to provide explanations to phenomena universally, contextualization and theorizing have been considered as opposing views. Contextualized explanation can work as a bridge between the two, as to enrich the building of theories and especially the dealing with context while constructing them. As an emergent research approach it is still relatively rare (in their study Welch et al. found that only 24 out of 199 case studies employed the method), but based on the potential benefits the authors hope for increased contextualized explanation in the future.

Critical realism

As opposed to the positivist and interpretive logics of the other approaches, the underlying philosophy of contextual explanation is critical realism, put forth primarily by

Bhaskar (1998). According to him, reality is made up of the empirical level (what is experienced), the actual level (events and states of affairs), and the real level (underlying structures, causal laws), and true knowledge deals with this last, most profound level.

Welch et al. (forthcoming) gather from previous research that causalities should be searched for on this deeper level, not from even regularities or by collecting observations.

Contextualized explanation seeks to account for why and how certain events are brought about, through the method of working backwards and reconstructing the causal chain.

This has been argued to provide stronger explanatory power than the traditional approach to causality, where a change in A causes a change in B (e.g. Roberts, 1996). By definition, working backwards in the causal chain suggests the inclusion of historical aspects, the importance of which as a part of context was discussed in section 2.1.3.

Multiple conjunctural approach

Ragin (2000, 51) further criticizes the traditional view of causality as a uniform sequence that can be applied to all cases. He suggests that in case research, we should instead be using a multiple conjunctural approach. This involves seeing the whole of the influences and conditions having their effect on the case, and using them together to explain the phenomena, as opposed to “measuring the net effect of an isolated variable”. According to Ragin (Ibid), taking a variable out of its spatial-temporal context might not yield accurate analysis results, as the same variable can produce different effects in particular contexts. This further encourages a multi-perspective method to be used in this study.

According to these suggestions, the present work uses a qualitative case study as the research method, employing contextualized explanation in the analysis. The case study can be defined as a research strategy that “examines, through the use of a variety of data sources, a phenomenon in its naturalistic context, with the purpose of ‘confronting’

theory with the empirical world” (Piekkari et al. 2009, 569). In this study interviews are the primary source of data. As we saw in the theoretical part or this study, institutions play a key role in context and therefore interviews were held both on the business and the institutional side. In addition, secondary data sources such as company, governmental, and institutional websites and other publications were used to complement the interview

data. To support one of the points discussed in the interview with Company F, an example of an internal e-mail was given to the researcher. For deeper understanding of bilingualism, a recording of the 2009 symposium on official languages was used. The data objects and their sources are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Data sources used

In addition to the above, personal observations were made possible by the researcher’s stay in Quebec during the research process. The next section explains the choice of the cases used in this study; Université Laval and Office Québécois de la Langue Française

from the institutional side and the three case companies from the business side.

Thereafter, the qualitative interview is looked at in more detail.