In a recent paper, use of the case method as the primary means of instruction was criticized for failing to adequately bring together both theory and practice (Pasricha, 2016). The purpose of the current paper is to rebut (and affirm) some of the concerns that Pasricha had with the case method as well as to provide an example of a case that addresses concerns raised in the Pasricha paper. The example case provided in the current paper addresses all of Pasricha’s concerns and demonstrates that a well-constructed case can combine theory and practice. The case method, as currently used in many business schools often does not specifically require the application of theory to practice. Requiring learners to apply theory to a problem from an actual business situation can reinforce theory in ways that simply reciting theory cannot accomplish. This author intends to show that the case method is good pedogogy. The problem is not the case method; the problem is the application of the case method.
Pumphrey, Lela, "Sorry Harvard, but I don't like the Case Method: A Rebuttal (and an Affirmation)" (2018). Business Administration. 144.