Case study research on innovation systems: Paradox, dialectical analysis and resolution

This paper addresses a largely unnoticed methodological paradox regarding the scientific status of case study research on innovation systems (ISs). Case study research has been the methodological catalyst for the genesis and establishment of the ISs approach, as one of the most widely used theoretical and policy-relevant perspectives on innovation in the social sciences. However, many ISs scholars believe that this type of research is not scientific enough. To deepen our understanding of the case study paradox, this paper utilises the dialectical method (also known as dialectics); in particular, the analytical triad of thesis (affirmation), antithesis (negation), and synthesis (transformation). It is shown that a dialectical resolution to the case study paradox involves a three-phase process. First, the analysis introduces the deductive thesis, which, based on the hypothetico-deductive model of science, posits that case study research on ISs cannot investigate causality and generality. The second step formulates the retroductive antithesis, which, based on the retroductive model of science, holds that case study research inherently possesses the ability to infer causality and generality. The third and final phase transforms the contradiction between the deductive thesis and the retroductive antithesis into a new methodological perspective, the detroductive synthesis, wherein – depending on the model of scientific explanation – case study research is both incapable (deductive thesis) and capable (retroductive antithesis) of inferring causality and generality. Overall, the analysis enables IS scholars to conduct case study research in a paradox-free, stand-alone, causal-explanatory, and generalisable way. The paper ends by discussing thought-provoking implications for research practice, the peer-review process, and the evaluation of innovation policies.