The Starting Point

The starting point to writing a case is the selection of a topic drawn from real-life events. News stories in the general or trade press, articles in professional and trade journals, and reports issued by non-government organizations (NGOs) are often the basis for cases in business, politics, and commercial diplomacy. Government documents, findings of international agencies, or publications of global organizations also provide material for written cases. These documents often report on negotiations over trade and investment issues, the enforcement of anti-trust regulations, the demonstrations by environmental interest groups, or the challenges to subsidies for new technologies. All of them provide sources of ideas to the case writer.

Which of the many possible events should be selected as the subject of a case study? The answer depends on (1) the theoretical or practical importance of the subject (2) the amount and quality of information available (3) the lessons to be learned, and (4) the writer’s confidence in his or her ability to complete the task.

Case writers tend to select subjects that have received considerable media attention. Topics that have received less public scrutiny are not necessarily less important, however. For example, a case developed by graduate students at the Monterey Institute of International Studies involving gas hose connectors for residential and commercial appliances raised important questions regarding the relevance of European Union (EU) rules to its nation-members [1]. This case demonstrated that national rules blocked imports from an American company, and also raised important theoretical issues concerning jurisdiction over the enforcement of standards. Although the case’s topic—gas hose connectors—was mundane, the issues it raised were fundamental to the field of commercial diplomacy.

Public information in this case was limited. The EU, as well as its nation-member agencies, did not issue statements, nor were they willing to discuss the issue with researchers. Only the willingness of the American company to disclose its position to the case writers eventually persuaded the Europeans to release some information. In this situation, the case writers persisted and finally succeeded in obtaining sufficient information to write the case.

Types of Cases

There are two types of teaching cases—the evaluative case and the decision-forcing case. Both of these types present facts and observations; however, the teaching approach used for each is different. These two types of cases are described in this section.

The evaluative, or descriptive case, presents past events, including any decisions made by the key protagonists. The students are asked to separate out the relative importance of the facts, concepts, and decisions described in the case, with the emphasis on the analysis of the case events. The important distinction here is that the case includes information about the decisions that were made and the actions that were taken. The student is then usually asked: What happened here? What is your opinion of the decisions? And, what would you have done differently?

The decision-forcing, or decision-focus case, in contrast, does not reveal the decisions made by the actual participants. Rather, the case is left deliberately unresolved, placing the student in the position of a commercial diplomat who must find and articulate a solution to the complex problems faced by the case participants. The student is generally faced with incomplete information, alternative options, and a request to select and defend a course of action. The student must therefore rely on his or her knowledge and skills to provide a solution. Then, the instructor discloses the outcome in the actual case, and the class debates the merits or failings of the actions taken.

Despite the difference between evaluative and decision-forcing cases, some cases include elements of both types. This may occur in a time-series set of related cases or in cases where at least two different sets of events have taken place. The important fact here is that the case writer recognizes the differences and addresses the two, or more, parts separately. Both types of cases, evaluative and decision forcing, are useful in commercial diplomacy curricula.

Researching the Events

The use of public information to initially select the case topic is considered part of the case writer’s research. The case writer may then attempt to research all relevant published material. A good deal of this material is generally known to the informed public and includes the general press, trade press, professional and business journals, association reports, government reports, and many other sources. A large number of information resources of special interest to the commercial diplomacy case writer may be found at the ITCD website [2]. These include publications by the World Trade Organization, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and many others. Over 50 important sources of commercial diplomacy-related information can be reached via the Internet through links at this site.

In addition to externally published material, the case writer may also use internally generated sources, such as the writer’s field activities, his or her professional work, consulting, conferences, and academic seminars. Other non-public sources include student reports, alumni lists, and societies of which the case writer is a member. The use of such sources poses a special problem, since it requires the writer to keep accurate notes of the information gathered from many sources over a period of time.

Further, each writer has access to participant-generated materials. These include materials generated by persons in institutions and organizations closely related to the case and especially by participants in the case to be created. Obtaining participant-generated material provides a challenge to the case writers because it is based on making personal contact with individuals often outside the writer’s present, and even past, sphere of acquaintances. Making contact with persons that the writer may not have been introduced to is also difficult; a known intermediary, however, may be able to help in providing an introduction.

The important point is to gain the trust of those who can provide information for the case. One way is to provide the intended case source with a draft of the case, based solely on published sources. Often, on reading a published account, a person is motivated to offer his or her direct knowledge of the situation, because he or she believes it to be more accurate than the published material. This submission of a preliminary case may motivate those who wish to be recognized as participants in important events and decisions. Gaining access can also be accomplished on a "quid pro quo" basis, where the case writer offers to share research material that may be helpful to the information source or to his or her organization in areas beyond the case under discussion.

 

Figure 2.1 summarizes these three types of sources for case research. All are valuable.

Another view, advanced by R. K. Yin in his book, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, is that there are six main sources of research material for cases. These are documentation, archival records, interviews, direct observations, participant observations, and physical artifacts. There are advantages and disadvantages to each, but, in Yin’s view, all must be considered by the case writer. An extensive detailed discussion of these advantages and disadvantages is available in the referenced text [3].

	Externally Generated Materials	Emphasis on           Available      Purchased materials	Descriptive Material For Case Creation
	Internally Generated Sources	Emphasis on           Knowledgeable      Personal contacts
	Participated Generated Materials	Emphasis on           Case participants      and related contacts

Figure 2.1
Case Material Sources

Primary and Secondary Sources

Primary sources of information are those considered to be the initial point of disclosure. For example, the word-by-word decision of a judge as published in a court record is a primary source. The judge’s verbal comments, if directly quoted, are a primary source as well. A newspaper report that paraphrases the court record, or paraphrases the judge’s quote whether accurately or not, is a secondary source. Important primary sources include:

A secondary source is an account of a reporter or other observer who attempts to document the related actions or decisions in his or her own words. Special reports by writers who interpret actions and decisions, but do not use primary sources in a quotable or referenced arrangement, are considered secondary case sources. Books on current events often contain both primary and secondary material. A balance of trustworthy secondary sources, essential and fundamental primary sources, and the necessary connective material is the best combination for a well-written case. These combinations must be based on the judgment of the writer, the reviewers of the case, and/or through classroom testing experience.

Primary source information is an important aspect of research because it leaves no doubt as to the facts as seen by the sources. Secondary sources are also important because they often bring forth indirect, but highly relevant, information. The writer’s ability to identify the most useful material, whether from primary or secondary sources, is part of the craft of writing commercial diplomacy cases.

From the discussion of primary and secondary sources, one can surmise that there are two types of cases. The first type, the field case, is written mainly from field research, supported by primary and secondary sources. The second type, the library case, draws almost exclusively on library research of both primary and secondary sources.

The first type, the field case, depends to a large degree on research in the field—within organizations and institutions where the action is occurring. One key activity in preparing the field case is the interview. The personal interview is a standard method of data collection allowing the case writer to understand the events, actions, and decisions that have taken place from the perspective of a participant. A personal interview should be recorded, wherever possible, by the use of an audio recorder. Another method of data collection is the use of an observer who takes notes on all questions, answers, and comments made, while the chief investigator engages the interviewee in the data-gathering task.

Five rules for a case writer conducting an interview [4]:

(1) Give your whole attention to the interviewee.

(2) Don’t talk—listen.

(3) Do not argue or comment.

(4) Clarify, if necessary, but do not give an opinion.

(5) Everything disclosed is a personal confidence, except for material that is later released as part of the published case.

 

While the field case depends, in large part, on the personal interviews and research within an organization, the second type—the library case—depends primarily on published material. The advantage of the library case approach is that direct access to personnel in the organization is not required. At times, case participants provide media interviews—newspapers, magazines, TV—and these are workable substitutes for an interview. Also, library cases do not require releases nor do they require the permission of the organization being studied. The disadvantage of the library case is that it lacks the human, emotional input to a field case, i.e., personal exposure to the case participants. An example of an excellent case written entirely from library sources of public information is "The Kodak-Fujifilm Trade Dispute" by David Baron. This case focuses on Eastman Kodak’s allegations that Fujifilm monopolized distribution channels for color film and photographic paper. In short, field cases rely primarily on "people sources," while library cases rely primarily on "paper sources."

One final note is included here on data collection and information gathering. Newspaper reporters, when reporting a story, often seek at least two sources reporting on the same information in order to improve the probability of accuracy. The process is called triangulation. This approach must also be considered in writing cases, in order to produce a document that is above suspicion with regard to accuracy.

A good case tells an interesting story, one that the reader will find enjoyable, as well as informative. Although based on facts rather than the author’s imagination, a case still must be written in an engaging way.

Many good storytellers start their stories with a sentence or paragraph that immediately attracts the reader’s attention. Some writers call this a "hook" or a "grabber" that tells of a dramatic event, issue, or statement that engages the reader, through surprise or shock, for example.

An example of a dramatic hook appears in the case on gas hose connectors mentioned earlier [5]. The opening paragraph states:

The U.S. company Dormont Manufacturing has found the EU’s development of standards not so much fascinating, but frustrating. The EU’s lack of integration in developing uniform product standards has sent Dormont on a market-access roller coaster ride.

The hook above introduces the case. It is an encapsulated problem statement that is consistent with the issues in the case that follows. It identifies two of the major decision-makers, specifically the EU and Dormont, and yet, the statement is intriguing enough to draw the reader in.

Another example of a "hook" is the third paragraph in a case involving rewriting the GATT rule book on trade in services [6]. The paragraph reads:

Yuetter faced a difficult choice. He could force a vote, a tactic almost unheard of in the consensus-conscious GATT and risk both permanently alienating his influential opponents and possibly losing. Or he could reconsider a scheme the United States had rejected out of hand only two days before, a "two track" proposal to pursue services-negotiations in some non-GATT forum, and thus risk alienating hard-won U.S. allies, . . .

 

Again, the hook is part of the case introduction that encapsulates the problem and identifies the major participants.

Like all good storytellers, the case writer should use simple, plain words and avoid jargon. Sentences and paragraphs should be clear and linked, so that a smooth flow is maintained. The amount of information presented in the case should also be considered carefully, because too little or too much may have a direct impact on the effectiveness of the case learning process. The manner in which the content is presented is also important. As already stated, simplicity of presentation, regardless of the complexity of the story, is essential. Finally, the style of writing—whether academic, informal, or journalistic—must be considered and left to the judgment of the writer.

The case organization in terms of its order of presentation should include, at minimum:

The organizational order of a case as presented above is a guide to the format most frequently seen in a collection of cases. The case writer may wish to use a different organizational structure. If so, it should be tested with peers, critics, or case instructors before venturing too far from the recognized standard. To aid the new case writer, an example of the detailed organization of a case, with a complete outline, will be presented at the end of Chapter 4.

A useful step in the case writing process is to test a library sourced preliminary draft of the case with a broad group. This test case can be used to gauge the degree of interest that it generates, the style of writing, the types of questions that it raises, and other matters related to the success of the case. By using this approach, the writer can obtain an initial evaluation of the case before taking time-consuming and costly steps to create a field case, such as traveling to distant sites, creating artwork for various exhibits, purchasing recording devices, or hiring interviewers. The test case will still be useful later if the writer decides to write an expanded publishable case, since the material gathered can easily become part of the final case study.

All field cases require a release, a document giving permission for use of proprietary information appearing in the case. The release form gives the writer’s name, position, organization, and the terms of the release, as well as a copy of the case as it is to be published or distributed for teaching use. The release should be signed by the appropriate decision-maker in the organization portrayed in the case.

The terms of the release should request that the person or organization in the case read and correct the case study draft provided. If the corrections are such that the case writer feels that the case has been unduly compromised, he or she must attempt to reconcile the matter before publication. If reconciliation cannot be achieved, the case writer may either abandon the effort or seek release for a disguised version of the case. The disguised case will be described in a later chapter.

Chapter 2 has focused on developing a general approach to the structure and form of a written case. It began with topic selection, proceeded through some important elements of case writing, and concluded with a section on obtaining a release for publication.

Mastering the fundamental elements of case writing, some of which are presented in this chapter, is not all that is involved in writing excellent cases in commercial diplomacy. Of critical importance, too, is the specific content necessary to provide meaningful teaching cases for training professional commercial diplomats. This is the subject of the next chapter.

1. http://www.commercialdiplomacy.org/case_gasp.htm.
   

2. http://www.commercialdiplomacy.org/links.htm.
   

3. Yin, R. K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994, pp. 78-101.
   

4. Leenders, M. R., and J. A. Erskine, Case Research: The Case Writing Process, Third Edition, University of Western Ontario, 1989, London, Ontario, p. 36.
   

5. Ibid.,http://www.commercialdiplomacy.org/case_gasp.htm.
   

6. Kennedy, D. M. (1988). Launching the Uruguay Round: Clayton Yuetter and the Two Track Decisions, Case 144-92-R. Washington, D. C.: Pew Case Studies, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University.