References
- 1. Examples of papers identifying these kinds of suspects include Schick, A. Why Most Developing Countries Should Not Try New Zealand Reforms. The World Bank Research Observer 13 (1998): 123–131; Therkildsen, O. Public Sector Reform in Tanzania, ” Public Administration & Development, 2000, 20: 63; Andersson, G.; Isaksen, J. Best Practice in Capacity Building in Public Finance Management in Africa, Experiences of NORAD and Sida. SIPU International Report R 2002: 16. Chr. Michelsen Institute, 2002: 22.
- 2. A classic article on the use of case studies is Eisenhardt, K.M. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 1989, 14 (4): 532–550.
- 3. Eisenhardt, Supra note 1; 539, identifies this kind of triangulation as vital if cases are to be used in testing theory or in developing new theory. She explains that “Triangulation made possible by multiple data collection methods provides stronger substantiation of constructs and hypotheses.” Even with stronger cases arising because of triangulation, the review process provided a number of interesting comments on most of the cases. These comments showed that evidence can be interpreted differently within such studies, which ensures that some critics will emerge as to some of the details in each study. To minimize the potential for such, we attempted to edit most papers so that only verifiable and factual information was included. In many places, however, interpretations of such information and firsthand observation of experience that is not easily verified were vital parts of the story. In such cases the information was kept in the case.
- 4. Dixon, G. Thailand's Quest for Results-Focused Budgeting. In this symposium.