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.

十年前，Welch、Piekkari、Plakoyiannaki 和 Paavilainen-Mäntymäki (2011) 基于因果解释和语境化之间的权衡，构建了一种基于案例研究的理论化类型。类型学由四种理论化方法组成——解释性意义构建、情境化解释、归纳理论构建和自然实验。虽然 Welch 等人丰富案例研究理论的工作值得称道，但因果解释和语境化之间的所谓权衡实际上并不存在，因果解释的分类维度未能反映案例研究人员的实际实践。我提出了另一种类型学，它包括理论发展作为一个新的维度来代替因果解释。四种修正的理论化方法因此变成了解释性的意义建构，情境化的解释、经验规律的识别以及理论构建和测试。替代类型学有助于以更多元化的方法论方法来指导案例研究人员。