What to look for in evaluating a Case-Study?
Table of Content:
A. General Framework
B. An example of usage of the rubrics in measuring one of the skills: "critical thinking"
C. In Practice, Example of Application
D. Strengths from each participant
E. Room for Improvements from each participant
F. DISCLAIMER
G. Bibliography
A. General Framework
Having read, assigned, work and taught more than 3,000 cases since February 2000, I find that a good case study must have at least these:
It goes without saying a case study must be written and prepared by an authoritative and highly credible writers from the field, with knowledge and practice accumulated acknowledge by the peers in the industry.
If I were to create a a condensed version with maximum eight key criteria that encapsulate the essential elements (each criterion can be scored on a scale of 1 to 10), I would come up with something like:
1. Authority (1-10)
? 1-2: Lacks credible authorship or institutional backing.
? 3-4: Limited credentials or questionable institution.
? 5-6: Somewhat credible author or institution.
? 7-8: Good credentials and institution.
? 9-10: Highly credible author and prestigious institution.
2. Narrative and Engagement (1-10)
? 1-2: No clear narrative, not engaging.
? 3-4: Weak narrative, minimally engaging.
? 5-6: Adequate narrative, moderately engaging.
? 7-8: Good narrative, engaging.
? 9-10: Compelling narrative, highly engaging.
3. Decision Fork and Dilemmas (1-10)
? 1-2: No clear decision points or dilemmas.
? 3-4: Few decision points, weak dilemmas.
? 5-6: Some decision points, adequately presented dilemmas.
? 7-8: Clear decision points, well-developed dilemmas.
? 9-10: Well-defined decision points, complex dilemmas.
4. Context and Structure (1-10)
? 1-2: Poor context, hard to understand the structure.
? 3-4: Limited context, somewhat clear structure.
? 5-6: Adequate context, generally clear structure.
? 7-8: Good context, clear and logical structure.
? 9-10: Rich context, very clear, well-organized structure.
5. Data and Analysis (1-10)
? 1-2: No data sets, superficial analysis.
? 3-4: Minimal data, limited analysis.
? 5-6: Some data sets, adequate analysis.
? 7-8: Good data sets, considerable depth of analy
9-10: Extensive data sets, thorough analysis.
6. Relevance and Practicality (1-10)
? 1-2: Irrelevant, no practical recommendations.
? 3-4: Limited relevance, minimal practical value.
? 5-6: Moderately relevant, some practical recommendations.
? 7-8: Relevant, good practical recommendations.
? 9-10: Highly relevant, very practical and actionable recommendations.
7. Critical Thinking and Depth (1-10)
? 1-2: Lacks critical thinking, superficial.
? 3-4: Minimal critical thinking, limited depth.
? 5-6: Some critical thinking, adequate depth.
? 7-8: Good critical thinking, considerable depth.
? 9-10: Exceptional critical thinking, thorough depth.
8. Originality and Impact (1-10)
? 1-2: Lacks originality, no lasting impact.
? 3-4: Minimal originality, limited impact.
? 5-6: Somewhat original, some impact.
? 7-8: Original, good impact.
? 9-10: Highly original, significant and lasting impact.
B. An example of usage of the rubrics in measuring one of the skills: "critical thinking":
1. Identification of Key Issues: Does the case study clearly identify and articulate the key issues or problems?
2. Depth of Analysis: Does the analysis go beyond surface-level observations to explore underlying causes and broader implications?
3. Logical Argumentation: Are the arguments and conclusions logically structured and supported by evidence and data?
4. Consideration of Multiple Perspectives: Does the case study consider different viewpoints and acknowledge potential biases or limitations?
5. Questioning Assumptions: Does the analysis challenge existing assumptions and provide a critical examination of the status quo?
6. Integration of Theory and Practice: Are theoretical concepts effectively applied to practical situations within the case study?
7. Problem-Solving: Are the solutions or recommendations well thought out, feasible, and based on a thorough analysis of the issues?
8. Original Insights: Does the case study offer unique or innovative insights that contribute to a deeper understanding of the issues?
the scoring
Critical Thinking (1-10)
? 1-2: Superficial analysis, no identification of key issues, lacks logical argumentation.
? 3-4: Limited analysis, weak logical structure, minimal consideration of multiple perspectives.
? 5-6: Adequate analysis, some logical argumentation, considers a few perspectives.
? 7-8: Good analysis, well-structured arguments, considers multiple perspectives and questions assumptions.
? 9-10: Exceptional analysis, highly logical and coherent arguments, integrates theory and practice, offers original insights.
Critical Thinking Rubric
a. Identification of Key Issues
? 1: Fails to identify key issues.
? Indicators: Lacks mention of core problems or challenges. Vague or unrelated content.
? 2: Some key issues mentioned but lack clarity.
? Indicators: Mentions problems but without clear articulation. Some important issues missing.
? 3: Most key issues identified with reasonable clarity.
? Indicators: Clear mention of most key problems. Some gaps in articulation.
? 4: Clearly identifies key issues, with minor gaps.
? Indicators: Comprehensive list of key problems, with detailed explanation.
? 5: Clearly and comprehensively identifies all key issues.
? Indicators: Thorough identification and explanation of all key issues. No gaps.
b. Depth of Analysis
? 1: Superficial analysis.
? Indicators: Descriptive rather than analytical. No deep exploration of issues.
? 2: Limited analysis with some relevant points.
? Indicators: Some analysis but lacking depth. Basic exploration of issues.
? 3: Adequate analysis with some depth.
? Indicators: Reasonable exploration of issues. Some deep insights.
? 4: Thorough analysis with significant depth.
? Indicators: Detailed exploration of issues. Strong insights and connections.
? 5: Profound and insightful analysis with extensive depth.
? Indicators: Deep, thorough analysis. Insightful, comprehensive understanding of issues.
c. Logical Argumentation
? 1: Poor structure, weak support.
? Indicators: Incoherent, unstructured arguments. Lacks supporting evidence.
? 2: Weak structure, limited support.
? Indicators: Some structure but lacks strong supporting evidence. Inconsistent logic.
? 3: Reasonable structure, adequate support.
? Indicators: Logical structure with adequate support. Clear arguments.
? 4: Good structure, well-supported.
? Indicators: Well-organized, strong arguments with good evidence.
? 5: Highly logical, strong support.
? Indicators: Highly coherent, well-supported arguments. Strong evidence and reasoning.
d. Consideration of Multiple Perspectives
? 1: No other perspectives considered.
? Indicators: One-sided view. Ignores alternative perspectives.
? 2: Minimal perspectives considered.
? Indicators: Limited acknowledgment of other viewpoints. Superficial consideration.
? 3: Adequate consideration of perspectives.
? Indicators: Reasonable acknowledgment and exploration of multiple perspectives.
? 4: Thorough consideration of perspectives.
? Indicators: Comprehensive examination of different viewpoints.
? 5: Comprehensive and integrated perspectives.
? Indicators: Thorough integration of diverse perspectives. Balanced view.
领英推荐
e. Questioning Assumptions
? 1: Assumptions not questioned.
? Indicators: Assumptions taken for granted. No critical examination.
? 2: Minimal questioning of assumptions.
? Indicators: Some questioning but lacks depth. Basic critical examination.
? 3: Adequate questioning of assumptions.
? Indicators: Reasonable critical examination of assumptions.
? 4: Thorough questioning of assumptions.
? Indicators: Strong critical examination of assumptions. Challenges status quo.
? 5: Deep and critical examination of assumptions.
? Indicators: Comprehensive questioning. Deep critical insights.
f. Integration of Theory and Practice
? 1: No integration, theory and practice separate.
? Indicators: Disconnected theory and practice. No application of theory.
? 2: Minimal integration, some connections made.
? Indicators: Basic connection between theory and practice. Limited application.
? 3: Adequate integration, reasonably connected.
? Indicators: Reasonable application of theory to practice.
? 4: Good integration, theory applied to practice.
? Indicators: Strong connection and application of theory to practical scenarios.
? 5: Seamless integration, highly relevant application.
? Indicators: Exceptional application of theory to practice. Seamlessly integrated.
g. Problem-Solving
? 1: Inadequate solutions, impractical.
? Indicators: Weak or unrealistic solutions. Lacks feasibility.
? 2: Limited, partially feasible solutions.
? Indicators: Some practical solutions but lacks depth and thoroughness.
? 3: Adequate, feasible solutions.
? Indicators: Reasonable, practical solutions. Adequately thought out.
? 4: Well-thought-out, practical solutions.
? Indicators: Strong, practical solutions. Well-developed.
? 5: Highly innovative, feasible solutions.
? Indicators: Exceptional, innovative solutions. Highly practical and well-supported.
h. Original Insights
? 1: No original insights.
? Indicators: Common, unoriginal ideas. Lacks creativity.
? 2: Minimal original insights.
? Indicators: Few creative ideas. Limited originality.
? 3: Some original insights.
? Indicators: Reasonable originality. Some creative and unique ideas.
? 4: Good original insights.
? Indicators: Strong originality. Many creative and unique insights.
? 5: Highly original, unique insights.
? Indicators: Exceptional creativity. Highly unique and original ideas.
C. In Practice, Example of Application
When judging a case study, look for these elements in the narrative flow:
? Identification of Key Issues: Look for a clear statement of the problems or challenges faced by the protagonist. Keywords might include “challenge,” “issue,” “problem,” “conflict.”
? Depth of Analysis: Look for sections where the case study delves into why the issues arose, examining causes and effects. Keywords include “analysis,” “cause,” “effect,” “underlying.”
? Logical Argumentation: Look for a well-structured argument where points are clearly made and supported by data or evidence. Keywords include “evidence,” “support,” “data,” “argument.”
? Consideration of Multiple Perspectives: Look for mentions of different stakeholders or viewpoints. Keywords include “perspective,” “viewpoint,” “stakeholder,” “bias.”
? Questioning Assumptions: Look for instances where the author questions the status quo or challenges existing beliefs. Keywords include “assumption,” “question,” “challenge,” “examine.”
? Integration of Theory and Practice: Look for references to theoretical concepts applied to the case’s practical aspects. Keywords include “theory,” “practice,” “application,” “concept.”
? Problem-Solving: Look for proposed solutions and their feasibility. Keywords include “solution,” “recommendation,” “feasible,” “practical.”
? Original Insights: Look for unique perspectives or innovative ideas that stand out. Keywords include “insight,” “innovation,” “unique,” “original.”
This approach will help ensure a consistent and objective evaluation of critical thinking in case studies.
D. Strengths from each participant:
Based on the evaluations provided, the main strength across all teams seems to be Authority and Credibility. This category consistently scored high marks, indicating that most teams effectively used credible sources and supported their arguments with strong evidence. Here’s a breakdown of the specific aspects contributing to this strength:
Key Factors Contributing to High Scores in Authority and Credibility:
1. Use of Reputable Sources: Teams frequently referenced established organizations, industry standards, and credible institutions (e.g., International Finance Corporation, Nickel Institute) which bolstered the reliability of their presentations.
2. Comprehensive Data: Many teams incorporated robust data and thorough analysis, including detailed statistics and projections, to support their claims and recommendations.
3. Institutional References: Citing reports and frameworks from reputable institutions added weight to their arguments and demonstrated a strong foundation of authority.
Summary of Strengths in Authority and Credibility Across Teams:
? Team z: High authority with excellent credentials and institutional reputation.
? Team a: Demonstrated some authority but needed stronger support from primary sources.
? Team y: Moderate authority, enhanced by a variety of legal references and industry standards.
? Team b: Good authority, with strong references to credible sources and comprehensive data.
? Team x: Solid authority, backed by data from reputable sources and industry standards.
? Team c: Strong authority, with numerous references to credible institutions and thorough data support.
Overall Strength Evaluation:
The consistent high scores in Authority and Credibility reflect that teams were diligent in grounding their analyses and recommendations in reliable and well-regarded sources. This approach not only lent credibility to their arguments but also provided a strong foundation for their proposed solutions and insights.
This focus on authoritative sourcing and data integrity is crucial in discussions about business ethics in the mining industry, where evidence-based arguments are essential for addressing complex ethical, environmental, and economic issues.
E. Room for Improvements from each participant
Based on the evaluations provided, the weaker trends across all teams seem to be Narrative and Storytelling and Original Insights and Practicality. These categories consistently received lower scores, indicating areas where teams could improve their engagement and innovation.
Key Factors Contributing to Lower Scores in Narrative and Storytelling:
1. Engagement: Many presentations lacked compelling narratives that could engage the audience emotionally. While the information was often clear, it did not always capture the audience’s interest effectively.
2. Character Development: Few teams included strong protagonists or relatable characters that could drive the story and create a deeper connection with the audience.
3. Emotional Connection: There was often a lack of personal stories or vivid examples that could make the ethical dilemmas more relatable and impactful.
Key Factors Contributing to Lower Scores in Original Insights and Practicality:
1. Innovation: While practical recommendations were often present, there was a notable lack of highly innovative or novel solutions that could differentiate the teams’ approaches.
2. Depth of Insights: Some teams provided recommendations that were practical but did not delve deeply enough into the complexities of the issues or offer groundbreaking ideas.
3. Actionability: In some cases, recommendations were too general and lacked detailed action plans that could guide implementation effectively.
Summary of Weaknesses Across Teams:
? Team a:
? Narrative and Storytelling: Adequate but not compelling.
? Original Insights and Practicality: Good but not exceptionally innovative.
? Team z:
? Narrative and Storytelling: Weak, with minimal character development and engagement.
? Original Insights and Practicality: Adequate but lacked depth and innovation.
? Team b:
? Narrative and Storytelling: Relatively engaging but could be more emotionally connecting.
? Original Insights and Practicality: Good insights but could benefit from more innovation.
? Team y:
? Narrative and Storytelling: Clear and well-structured but could be more engaging.
? Original Insights and Practicality: Practical recommendations but with room for more innovative solutions.
? Team c:
? Narrative and Storytelling: Clear but could be more compelling.
? Original Insights and Practicality: Practical but not highly innovative.
? Team x:
? Narrative and Storytelling: Clear and logically structured but could use more engaging elements.
? Original Insights and Practicality: Good insights but with room for further innovation.
Overall Weakness Evaluation:
The consistent lower scores in Narrative and Storytelling and Original Insights and Practicality indicate that while teams were effective in presenting well-supported and credible information, they struggled with making their presentations more engaging and innovative. Focusing on enhancing storytelling techniques and developing more original and practical solutions could significantly improve the overall impact of their presentations.
F. DISCLAIMER
Note: The team codes (e.g., Team 01, Team 02, Team a, Team x, etc.) used in this evaluation are assigned randomly and do not correspond to the actual team numbers. This random assignment is intended to anonymize the teams for impartial evaluation.
G. Bibliography:
Barnes, L. B., Christensen, C. R., & Hansen, A. J. (1987). Teaching with cases at the Harvard Business School. In Teaching and the case method (3rd ed., pp. 34–68). Harvard Business School Press.
Bonoma, T. V. (1987). Learning with cases (HBS No. 9-589-080). Harvard Business School.
Corey, E. R. (1976). The use of cases in management education (HBS No. 376-240). Harvard Business School.
Ellet, W. (2018). The case study handbook: A student’s guide (Revised ed.). Harvard Business School Publishing.
Gabarro, J. J., & Beer, M. (2006). Learning in the Harvard Business School’s general management program (HBS No. N2-407-026). Harvard Business School. https://www.hbsp.harvard.edu
Hammond, J. S. (2002). Learning by the case method (HBS No. 9-376-241). Harvard Business School. https://www.hbsp.harvard.edu
McDale, S. A. (1988). An introduction to the case study method: Preparation, analysis, and participation (Case Note). The Institute for Educational Management.
Shapiro, B. P. (1975). An introduction to the case method (HBS No. 9-576-031). Harvard Business School.
Shapiro, B. P. (1984). An introduction to cases (HBS No. 9-584-097). Harvard Business School.
I write as part of thinking, not to influence
8 个月Thanks for the token Mark Clay .. appreciate it.
I write as part of thinking, not to influence
9 个月Harry Susilo Institute For Ethics In The Global Economy Holds Final Case Competition - https://voi.id/en/economy/386148
Serial Entrepreneur, Angel Investor, and Professor based in Tokyo Japan
9 个月Hi Toronata, It was great meeting you at the Finals, and thank you very much for your contribution to the case competition. Stay in touch!