A note of some practical advices to MBA students doing a secondary research on case study

A note of some practical advices to MBA students doing a secondary research on case study

One of the difficulties faced by some of my Hong Kong part-time MBA students is that they find it difficult to conduct case study research, as they might not know the corporate gatekeepers on client organizations related to their dissertation works. In this regard, they would consider conducting a secondary research method of case studies. Could you offer 4 advices how they could gather useful case study materials from the Internet or other sources. For example, if an MBA student intends to study companies in Hong Kong that offer pet services (case 1) and Hong Kong companies that Chinese restaurants (case 2), could you suggest how they could gather useful information for case study purpose?

Here are four concrete, “teachable” approaches you can pass to your students, using your two examples (HK pet services and Chinese restaurants) to illustrate what secondary case-study research can look like in practice.

---

1. Use published business / academic cases and journal articles

Students can treat published cases and empirical articles as their case data (rather than trying to access the company directly). These often contain rich descriptions of strategy, operations, customer segments, governance, and performance.hkpl.gov+1

• Guide them to business databases available via HK universities or the HK Public Libraries (e.g. Business Source Complete) where they can access company profiles, case studies, SWOT analyses, industry and market reports.hkpl.gov
• For Chinese restaurant cases, they can look for Hong Kong restaurant case studies in Asian case clearing houses (e.g. SMU, HKU, CUHK). For example, there is a well‑known case on Yung Kee Restaurant in Hong Kong focusing on governance and family business issues; students can repurpose this as a core or comparative case if relevant to their topics.ink.library.smu.edu

For your pet-services example, they could similarly search for “pet economy” and “pet-friendly shopping centres” in Hong Kong in academic or professional reports (e.g. case-based studies on pet-friendly malls or pet-related brands).hub.hku+1

Question for your students: If you adopt a published case as your core case, which parts of the case (context, decision problem, data tables, quotes) would you systematically code or extract for your own research questions?

---

2. Mine industry and regulatory reports, trade bodies, and NGOs

A second stream of secondary case data comes from industry reports, regulators, professional bodies, and consumer councils. These often include mini-cases, complaint narratives, and market overviews.consumer.org+2

• For pet services: students can use Hong Kong Consumer Council complaint summaries on pet-related services (relocation, grooming, pet shops) as rich qualitative episodes of service failure, trust issues, and customer experience. They can combine this with market reports such as the Hong Kong pet food market report to understand the industry context, market size, growth, and key players.consumer.org+1
• For Chinese restaurants: they can use resources from bodies like the Hong Kong Business Ethics Development Centre, which publishes catering-industry case studies linked to ethics, staff conduct, and management practices. These are often structured as narrative cases with background, incident, and lessons learned—ideal for secondary case analysis.hkbedc.icac

Encourage students to treat each report section, vignette, or complaint as a “micro‑case” that can be coded thematically (e.g. service quality, ethics, process design) and then grouped into patterns.

---

3. Systematically use company websites, news, and social media as case data

Students often look at websites and news casually, but for dissertation work they need systematic procedures to turn open information into rigorous case material.numberanalytics

• Pet service companies (case 1): identify 3–5 focal firms (e.g. grooming chains, pet relocation firms, veterinary clinic groups, pet-friendly malls). For each, students can systematically collect:
• Website content (value propositions, service menus, pricing logic, brand positioning)
• Social media (Facebook, IG, Xiaohongshu) for posts, customer comments, and campaign examples
• News articles about incidents, expansions, partnerships, or controversies
• Chinese restaurants (case 2): select a portfolio of Chinese restaurants (mid-range chains, high-end icons, local cha chaan teng brands). For each:
• Analyze menu design, positioning, and pricing on websites or delivery apps
• Gather reviews and customer narratives from platforms (e.g. OpenRice, Google Reviews) as qualitative data on perceived service, ambience, and authenticity
• Collect news features, award write-ups, or interviews with founders/chefs as “elite” secondary data

What makes this academic is that students predefine coding categories (e.g. service innovation, customer value proposition, digitalization) and then systematically code the textual and visual data, rather than cherry‑picking interesting pieces.josephho33.blogspot+1

---

4. Leverage databases, case portals, and local government or association resources

Students often underuse institutional resources that can anchor very solid secondary case work.hkpl.gov+2

• University / public library databases: in addition to journal and case databases, these often provide access to company profiles, financials, trade news, and industry statistics for Hong Kong SMEs.hkpl.gov+1
• Government and quasi‑government sources: departments or councils sometimes commission research or publish case-like stories on local sectors such as catering and pet-related businesses, or the “pet economy” more broadly, which can be treated as contextual or comparative case material.hkfederation.org+2
• B2B databases and directories: tools and directories that list Hong Kong businesses (even basic ones) can help students define a sampling frame (e.g. all registered pet grooming firms in a district, or all Chinese restaurants of a certain type), from which they can pick focal cases for secondary analysis.syncgtm

For teaching purposes, you might have them design a short “data collection protocol” for one industry (e.g. pet grooming) that specifies which databases and websites they will use, what variables they will extract (e.g. location, service scope, price level, positioning), and how this supports their case-study research questions.josephho33.blogspot+1

A collection of blog notes on using chatgpt for research purpose.

A note of some practical literature review advices to MBA students doing dissertation projects

A note of some practical literature review advices to MBA students doing dissertation projects

 

In the context of doing literature review and using literature review findings to inform the whole four-month dissertation projects done by my Hong Kong part-time MBA students, as a lecturer, I find it useful to offer some specific literature review advices to the students. Consider the following considerations for most of these dissertation projects: based on pragmatism; exploratory research; using 3 to 4 academic theories with useful analytic steps and techniques; dissertation related academic concepts as also compared with very similar concepts used in a particular business settings. These students are not able to conduct vigorous nor comprehensive literature review. Could you offer 5 practical literature review advices to them?

 

Based on your context—pragmatist, exploratory MBA dissertations in Hong Kong, 3–4 theories, limited time and scope—here are five practical literature review advices you can give your students:

1. Define a tight “concept boundary” before searching

Because students cannot do comprehensive reviews, they should explicitly limit the scope of their literature review to:

• A clear business problem (e.g., “low repeat purchase in a HK retail bank”)
• 3–4 specific academic concepts/theories they plan to use (e.g., service quality, perceived value, trust, loyalty)
• A time window (e.g., 2015–2026) and a few key journals or databases.libguides.hull.ac+1

Ask them to write a one-paragraph “concept boundary statement” such as:

“This review focuses on academic work on service quality, perceived value, trust and loyalty in retail banking and related consumer services (2015–2026), with emphasis on studies in Asia where possible, to inform an exploratory study of customer retention in a Hong Kong bank.”

This prevents endless searching and keeps the review aligned with the four-month project timeline.libguides.hull.ac

2. Use a “funnel + theory” structure, not a comprehensive survey

Given their constraints, students should adopt a funnel structure that moves from broad to focused, but organised around their chosen theories rather than trying to cover everything:libguides.hull.ac

• Top of funnel (brief): 5–8 key papers that position the topic in the wider field (e.g., why customer retention matters in banking; general models of loyalty).libguides.hull.ac
• Middle of funnel: 10–15 papers grouped by each of the 3–4 theories (e.g., a section on service quality models, another on perceived value in services, etc.).libguides.hull.ac
• Bottom of funnel: 5–8 very close studies (similar industry/region/problem) that directly inform their research questions and design.libguides.hull.ac

This structure helps them show they understand the field without needing a truly comprehensive review.libguides.brown+1

3. Build a simple synthesis matrix for each theory

To make the literature actionable for analysis, each student should create a small synthesis matrix (e.g., in Excel) for each theory, with columns such as:

• Author/year
• Context (industry/country)
• Key constructs and definitions
• Method (qual/quant/mixed; sample)
• Main findings
• How this study’s use of the concept differs from their business case

This achieves two things:

• It forces synthesis instead of “list of summaries”.owl.purdue+1
• It directly supports later analytic steps: they can see which constructs are most relevant, which relationships are supported, and where their business setting may differ.libguides.brown

You can require each student to submit these matrices as an appendix, so you can quickly check depth and relevance.

4. Explicitly distinguish academic concepts from “similar” business terms

Since you want them to compare academic concepts with how similar terms are used in a particular business setting, have them add a short subsection for each theory:

• Academic definition: 2–4 sentences summarising how the concept is defined and operationalised in the literature (citing 2–4 core sources).libguides.brown+1
• Business usage: 1–2 paragraphs describing how the same or similar term is used in their chosen company/industry (based on internal documents, websites, or interviews), highlighting differences in scope, measurement, or assumptions.
• Implication for analysis: 3–5 bullet points on how this difference affects how they will use the theory in their analysis (e.g., “In the literature, ‘loyalty’ includes attitudinal and behavioural components; in the firm it is measured only by repeat purchase, so we will…”).

This makes the literature review directly useful for the whole project, not just a background chapter, and aligns with a pragmatist stance where usefulness guides concept selection.libguides.brown+1

5. Treat the literature review as iterative and “good enough for decisions”

Given pragmatism and exploratory aims, emphasise that the goal is not an exhaustive, definitive review, but a decision-quality review that:

• Justifies the research question and design.libguides.hull.ac
• Provides enough theoretical grounding to guide data collection and analysis.libguides.brown
• Identifies 2–3 clear gaps or tensions their project will explore.libguides.hull.ac

Practical tactics:

• Set a cap (e.g., 25–35 core papers) and a deadline for the “main” review; after that, only add sources if they clearly change the research design or analysis framework.libguides.brown
• Require a short “living” section at the end of their review: “How this review shaped my research questions and methods,” to be updated as they refine their project.libguides.brown+1

This mindset helps students avoid perfectionism and focus on using the literature to make concrete, pragmatic choices across the four-month project.

A collection of blog notes on using chatgpt for research purpose.

A note of a contingency guide to employ the three literature review-related secondary research methods: for MBA students

A note of a contingency guide to employ the three literature review-related secondary research methods: scoping review, systematic literature review and narrative review: for MBA students

 

In the context of doing MBA dissertation projects, there are three kinds of literature-related secondary research methods: scoping review, narrative review and systematic literature review. Briefly highlight three main ideas of each of these methods and provide a brief contingency guide on when to use which research method and, if more than one method is to use, also inform the sequence of their usage. 

Scoping review – three main ideas

1.    Purpose: map the territory
A scoping review aims to identify the breadth, key themes, concepts, and types of evidence in a broad or emerging area, rather than answer a narrow, evaluative question.

2.    Question: broad and exploratory
Typical questions are of the form “What has been studied about X?” or “How has concept Y been defined and operationalised?” rather than “Does intervention A improve outcome B?”.

3.    Method: structured but not deeply evaluative
It usually involves a transparent, comprehensive search with explicit inclusion criteria and standardised data charting, but often does not undertake formal critical appraisal or meta-analysis.

For MBA dissertations, scoping reviews are particularly useful when your topic is wide (e.g. “digital transformation in SMEs” or “affordable housing policies in Asian cities”) and you need to understand how the literature is structured, where the gaps are, and how to narrow your research question.

---

Narrative review – three main ideas

1.    Purpose: tell the story and build an argument
A narrative review synthesises and interpretively discusses existing literature to build a conceptual or theoretical narrative around a topic, often leading to a conceptual framework or set of propositions.

2.    Question: integrative and often theory‑driven
It typically addresses “How can we understand X?” or “What theoretical perspectives explain Y?” and is common in introductory chapters of dissertations to position your study and justify your hypotheses or research model.

3.    Method: flexible and interpretive, less formalised
The search may be broad but is not necessarily exhaustive; methods are more flexible, allowing critical commentary, theory comparison, and integration of diverse sources, with less emphasis on replicability and more on coherence of argument.

In MBA work, narrative reviews are the default for many dissertations: they help you connect theories (e.g. TPB, TAM, service-dominant logic, housing affordability frameworks) and build a persuasive rationale for your research design.

---

Systematic literature review [also called systematic review] –  three main ideas

1.    Purpose: answer a precise question with minimum bias
A systematic review aims to comprehensively collect and critically appraise studies to answer a specific, well-defined question (e.g. “What is the effect of loyalty programmes on repeat purchase behaviour in retail banking?”).

2.    Question: narrow, focused, and often evaluative
It suits questions about relationships, effects, or impacts, especially when you need evidence-based conclusions (and possibly meta-analysis), such as “Do financial literacy interventions improve investment performance among retail investors?”

3.    Method: highly structured, protocol‑driven
It follows a pre‑specified protocol: exhaustive searches, explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria, multiple reviewers, critical appraisal of study quality, and transparent reporting, ideally allowing replication and formal synthesis (quantitative or qualitative).

In an MBA dissertation, a full systematic review is more demanding but powerful if you have a narrow question, a mature body of empirical work, and sufficient time and supervisory support.

---

Contingency guide: when to use which, and in what sequence

Think of these three as tools for different levels of focus and rigour:

1.    Use a scoping review when:

o   Your topic is broad, complex, or emerging, and you are still refining the research question.

o   You suspect multiple sub‑topics, theories, or methodological traditions and want to map them.

o   You need to identify gaps or promising niches for an MBA‑scale study.

Typical sequence:

o   Start with a scoping review early in the project to map the field and narrow your focus.

o   Follow it with a narrative review that zooms in on the most relevant themes and theories for your final research question.

2.    Use a narrative review when:

o   You already have a reasonably defined topic/question and now need to build a strong theoretical and conceptual foundation.

o   Your aim is to construct a conceptual framework, articulate hypotheses or research questions, and position your study within existing debates.

o   Your dissertation is primarily empirical (survey, interviews, case study), and the literature review chapter must explain and justify your design rather than be a stand‑alone evidence synthesis.

Typical sequence:

o   A narrative review can stand alone (most common in MBA dissertations).

o   Or follow after a scoping review (scoping = map, narrative = interpret and theorise).

3.    Use a systematic review when:

o   Your research question is narrow and evaluative (e.g. effectiveness of a strategy, strength of a relationship).

o   There is a substantial body of empirical work, allowing robust synthesis.

o   The dissertation itself is intended to be a stand‑alone evidence synthesis, possibly publishable, rather than a typical mixed‑methods project.

Possible sequences when combining methods:

o   Scoping → Systematic → Narrative

§  Scoping review to determine whether a systematic review is feasible and to refine the precise review question.

§  Systematic review to rigorously answer that question and synthesise empirical findings.

§  Narrative review (or narrative integration chapter) to interpret the systematic review’s findings, connect them to broader theories, and draw managerial or policy implications.

o   Narrative → Systematic (less common in dissertations, more in programmes of research)

§  A narrative review first to establish conceptual background and identify candidate relationships.

§  Then a systematic review targeting one of these relationships in depth.

4.    Pragmatic guidance for MBA dissertations:

o   If your dissertation is typical empirical MBA work (survey, qualitative interviews, case studies), your core literature component will usually be a narrative review, perhaps enriched with some scoping‑style mapping for transparency.

o   If your topic is very broad or emerging (e.g. fintech in social housing finance, ESG investing in Asian REITs), consider an initial scoping review to show how you narrowed the topic and identified gaps.

o   If your supervisor encourages an evidence‑synthesis dissertation and the field is mature (e.g. service quality and customer satisfaction in retail banking), a systematic review could be your main methodology, supplemented by narrative discussion of theories and implications.

 

Do different research types (i.e. descriptive research, exploratory research, causal research and evaluation research) tend to favor a particular literature review-related secondary research method (i.e. scoping review, systematic review and narrative review)?

Short answer: there are tendencies, but not hard rules

Different research types do tend to align with particular review methods, because the logic of the research question (broad vs narrow, exploratory vs evaluative) fits better with some forms of secondary research than others. But the match is contingent rather than deterministic: a single research type can legitimately be supported by more than one review method depending on scope, maturity of the field, and dissertation constraints.guides.mclibrary.duke+2

Below is a pragmatic MBA‑oriented mapping.

---

Exploratory research

Exploratory research asks broad, open questions to understand “what is going on”, “how is this phenomenon conceptualised”, or “what issues exist in this space”.

• Favoured review type: scoping review
  Because exploratory work needs to map concepts, methods, and gaps rather than test specific hypotheses, scoping reviews are naturally aligned; they assess the extent, nature, and heterogeneity of the literature and highlight gaps.guides.mclibrary.duke+1
• Supplementary review type: narrative review
  Once the broad terrain is mapped, narrative synthesis is useful to interpret key themes and build a preliminary conceptual model or set of propositions for later empirical work.support.covidence

Typical sequence for an exploratory MBA project:

1.    Scoping review to map the field (e.g. “What has been studied about ESG integration in Asian REITs?”).

2.    Narrative review to interpret major themes, theories, and gaps, leading to refined research questions or a conceptual framework.

---

Descriptive research

Descriptive research aims to characterise patterns, profiles, or relationships without necessarily inferring causality (e.g. profiling customer segments, documenting housing affordability patterns).ncbi.nlm.nih

• Favoured review type: narrative review
  Descriptive projects usually require a coherent account of what is known about variables, constructs, and patterns; narrative reviews have enough flexibility to integrate theoretical, empirical, and contextual work without the heavy protocol of a systematic review.support.covidence
• Optional: scoping elements
  If the topic is wide or fragmented (e.g. many different segmentations or measurement approaches), incorporating scoping‑style mapping at the start helps justify how you narrowed the descriptive focus.libguides.library.tmc

Typical sequence for a descriptive MBA project:

1.    Brief scoping-style mapping (even if not labelled formally) to understand range of approaches.

2.    Narrative review focusing on key constructs, measures, and descriptive findings in your chosen context (e.g. Hong Kong housing stress indicators).

---

Causal research

Causal research investigates whether X causes Y, or the strength/direction of causal relationships (e.g. “Does perceived service quality cause customer loyalty in retail banking?”).onlinelibrary.wiley

• Favoured review type: systematic review
  Where the literature is mature enough, systematic reviews are designed to collate and critically appraise empirical evidence to answer clearly formulated causal questions, minimising bias and allowing stronger causal inference.guides.mclibrary.duke+1
• Supplementary: narrative review
  Narrative synthesis can interpret findings, compare theories of causality (e.g. different behavioural models), and discuss mechanisms, moderators, and boundary conditions.onlinelibrary.wiley

Typical sequence for a causal MBA project (if feasible):

1.    Scoping review (or extensive preliminary search) to check whether a systematic review is warranted and to refine the causal question.

2.    Systematic review focusing on studies of the causal relationship of interest.

3.    Narrative integration to interpret causal evidence, connect to theory, and derive implications for practice or further experimentation.

---

Evaluation research

Evaluation research assesses the effectiveness or impacts of programmes, policies, or interventions (e.g. evaluating a financial literacy initiative or a housing subsidy scheme).youtubelibguides.library.tmc

• Favoured review type: systematic review
  Because evaluation questions typically focus on “what works, for whom, and under what conditions”, systematic reviews (and sometimes rapid or umbrella reviews) are widely used to support evidence‑based evaluation and policy decisions.libguides.library.tmc
• Supplementary: narrative or realist‑style review
  Narrative or realist reviews help unpack mechanisms, contexts, and implementation issues, especially when interventions are complex and the evidence is heterogeneous.onlinelibrary.wiley+1

Typical sequence for an evaluation‑focused MBA project:

1.    Scoping review to assess the range and types of evaluations conducted in the area.

2.    Systematic review (or systematized review, given MBA constraints) of intervention effectiveness.

3.    Narrative/realist discussion of mechanisms, contextual factors, and recommendations for practice.

---

Putting it together: tendencies in one table

Research type	Typical question focus		Favoured review method		Common sequence (MBA context)
Research type		Typical question focus		Favoured review method		Common sequence (MBA context)
Exploratory		Broad, “what/why/how”		Scoping → Narrative		Map field, then interpret themes and propose framework.guides.mclibrary.duke+1
Descriptive		Patterns, profiles		Narrative (with scoping elements)		Map key measures/approaches, then narratively synthesise findings.support.covidence+1
Causal		“Does X cause Y?”		Systematic (+ Narrative)		Scoping to assess feasibility → systematic review → narrative integration.onlinelibrary.wiley+1
Evaluation		“Does intervention work?”		Systematic (+ Narrative/Realist)		Scoping → systematic (or systematized) review → narrative/realist discussion.libguides.library.tmcyoutube

Note these are tendencies: for example, an exploratory study in a very narrow, well‑researched niche might justify a mini‑systematic review, while a causal MBA project with sparse literature may have to rely on a narrative review with explicit limitations.

A collection of blog notes on using chatgpt for research purpose.