IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v25y2006i2p109-115.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Editorial: Save Research—Abandon the Case Method of Teaching

Author

Listed:
  • Steven M. Shugan

    () (University of Florida, Warrington College of Business, 201B Bryan Hall, P.O. Box 117155, Gainesville, Florida 32611)

Abstract

The case method of teaching and the corresponding Socratic Method predate the discovery of the scientific method for advancing knowledge and problem solving. The case method applies known principles (e.g., laws) to specific situations while the scientific method focuses on discovering principles. Although the case method might be effective at teaching leadership and persuasion skills, it can lack the spirit of inquiry and the worship of the truth associated with the scientific method. Moreover, unlike legal cases, business cases lack precedent (i.e., stare decisis), the foundation of written law, and rigorous adjudication. More importantly, the traditional case method of teaching often ignores important research findings. Consequently, it helps destroy the link between academic research and classroom learning. Students lose the benefit of important research findings while leaving the classroom with false confidence about what they know. Researchers lose an incentive to do research relevant to their students. Eventually, there is less research worth teaching, and fewer students value the knowledge learned through painstaking research. Although we might covet the skill of persuasion, time might gradually elevate previously less persuasive managers who have better skills with analysis and collecting relevant information. Great teaching requires great content, in addition to active learning.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven M. Shugan, 2006. "Editorial: Save Research—Abandon the Case Method of Teaching," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 109-115, 03-04.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:25:y:2006:i:2:p:109-115
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1060.0202
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Koen Pauwels, 2004. "How Dynamic Consumer Response, Competitor Response, Company Support, and Company Inertia Shape Long-Term Marketing Effectiveness," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 596-610, June.
    2. Robert E. Krider & Tieshan Li & Yong Liu & Charles B. Weinberg, 2005. "The Lead-Lag Puzzle of Demand and Distribution: A Graphical Method Applied to Movies," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 635-645, April.
    3. Steven M. Shugan, 2004. "Editorial: Consulting, Research, and Consulting Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 173-179.
    4. Wolfgang Jank & P. K. Kannan, 2005. "Understanding Geographical Markets of Online Firms Using Spatial Models of Customer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 623-634, December.
    5. Niladri B. Syam & Ranran Ruan & James D. Hess, 2005. "Customized Products: A Competitive Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 569-584, February.
    6. Sharad Borle & Peter Boatwright & Joseph B. Kadane & Joseph C. Nunes & Shmueli Galit, 2005. "The Effect of Product Assortment Changes on Customer Retention," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 616-622, July.
    7. Andrew Ainslie & Xavier Drèze & Fred Zufryden, 2005. "Modeling Movie Life Cycles and Market Share," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 508-517, November.
    8. Xiaotong Li, 2005. "Cheap Talk and Bogus Network Externalities in the Emerging Technology Market," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 531-543, October.
    9. Steven M. Shugan, 2005. "Marketing and Designing Transaction Games," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 525-530.
    10. John T. Gourville & Dilip Soman, 2005. "Overchoice and Assortment Type: When and Why Variety Backfires," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 382-395, July.
    11. Peter N. Golder & Gerard J. Tellis, 2004. "Growing, Growing, Gone: Cascades, Diffusion, and Turning Points in the Product Life Cycle," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 207-218, December.
    12. Wilfred Amaldoss & Amnon Rapoport, 2005. "Collaborative Product and Market Development: Theoretical Implications and Experimental Evidence," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 396-414, February.
    13. David Besanko & Jean-Pierre Dubé & Sachin Gupta, 2005. "Own-Brand and Cross-Brand Retail Pass-Through," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 123-137, July.
    14. John R. Hauser & Olivier Toubia, 2005. "The Impact of Utility Balance and Endogeneity in Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 498-507, August.
    15. William L. Carlson, 1999. "A Case Method for Teaching Statistics," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 52-58, January.
    16. Donald G. Morrison & Jagmohan S. Raju, 2004. "50th Anniversary Article: The Marketing Department in Management Science: Its History, Contributions, and the Future," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(4), pages 425-428, April.
    17. Robert A. Leone, 1989. "Teaching management without cases," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(4), pages 704-711.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Preyas S. Desai & David Bell & Gary Lilien & David Soberman, 2012. "Editorial --The Science-to-Practice Initiative: Getting New Marketing Science Thinking into the Real World," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 1-3, January.
    2. Steven M. Shugan, 2007. "The Editor's Secrets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 589-595, 09-10.
    3. Steven M. Shugan, 2006. "Editorial: Fifty Years of," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 551-555, 11-12.
    4. Anthony J. Evans, 2012. "Pedagogical Synergies Between Austrian Economics and the Case Method," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 28(Fall 2012), pages 91-103.
    5. repec:fgv:eaerae:v:57:y:2017:i:4:a:71358 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. repec:taf:oaefxx:v:3:y:2015:i:1:p:1120977 is not listed on IDEAS

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:25:y:2006:i:2:p:109-115. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.