Page 54 - Introduction & Preamble

CRITICISM of the CASE METHOD

In recent years, particularly since the 2008 financial crisis,

criticism has been levelled against the case method its

history and its use particularly under the Harvard Business
School teaching model, as promoting a smooth linear

evolution which presents a “narrow, instrumental, amoral,

managerial perspective on business where making decisions
which maximise profit is all that matters, ignoring the social

responsibilities of organisations.” This, it is argued works to

reinforce the role of the business school and the

methodologies they adopt (Bridgeman, 2011, 2016).

However, if case studies are seen as histories, then as
Bridgeman, Cummings and McLaughlin (2016) put it “our

ability to learn is limited by the histories we have created.”.

Appealing as this view may be one caveat should be

highlighted here, which is that using history as proof for the
future is fraught with dangers and simply wrong. Perhaps

business schools that merely use the yardstick of

profitability and action as the reason for case study
selection and use are acting in a less than holistic manner

and treading the ruts of a well-worn path that may be

ignoring the developing changes in the landscape. If this is

so, then the same rebuttal as that used by the National Rifle
Association may be called upon. It is not the case method

that is wrong but rather the users - Business Schools. Profit

and its maximisation and the teaching of such may be seen,

by some, as amoral and as such needs to be reassessed and
rebalanced.