@article {250,
	title = {Making Contributions From Interpretive Case Studies: Examining Processes of Construction and Use},
	year = {2004},
	month = {2004},
	pages = {293 - 312},
	abstract = {In this paper, we examine how contributions are established in interpretive case studies. By focusing on the introductory sections of articles, previous research in the organizational literature has recently shed light on how theorists construct opportunities for making contributions. Our theoretical approach is broader in scope, examining both the construction and use of contributions in all sections of an article. We use this approach to explore how a well-ited IS interpretive case study makes contributions. With respect to constructing contributions, our findings confirm previous strategies suggested by earlier research, and uncover the use of plural strategies. Our analysis of the use of contributions is more unexpected. For example, key theoretical and conceptual contributions that were central to the case study were rarely drawn on and incorporated by later texts. Rather, multiple audiences took up the softer, and simpler, conceptual contributions. Furthermore, our findings categorize a number of different types of referencing used by later texts in incorporating and using contributions, namely mistaken referencing, ambiguous referencing, incorporating into a new term, and related work referencing. We conclude by providing some suggestions as to how IS researchers can make better contributions from interpretive case studies},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8095-6_17},
	author = {Michael Barrett and Geoff Walsham}
}
