Alternative typologies of case study theorizing: Causal explanation versus theory development as a classification dimension

Ten years ago, Welch, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki, and Paavilainen-Mäntymäki (2011) constructed a typology of theorizing from case studies based on the trade-off between causal explanation and contextualization. The typology consists of four methods of theorizing – interpretive sensemaking, contextualized explanation, inductive theory-building, and natural experiment. While Welch et al.’s work to enrich case study theorizing is commendable, the alleged trade-off between causal explanation and contextualization does not in fact exist and the classification dimension of causal explanation fails to reflect the actual practice of case researchers. I propose an alternative typology that includes theory development as a new dimension in place of causal explanation. The four revised methods of theorizing thus become interpretive sensemaking, contextualized explanation, identification of empirical regularities and theory building and testing. The alternative typology contributes to a more pluralistic methodological approach to guide case researchers.