Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to assess the benefits and drawbacks of the case method, one of the participative learning techniques, and its appropriateness for the Turkish cultural context. It offers an executable strategy for promoting this method in Turkey. Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides an analysis of a wide range of articles on organizational and classroom learning, strategic leadership, and Turkish cultural, educational, and institutional contexts. This is complemented by information from semi‐structured interviews with Canadian case method experts and Turkish educators and educational leaders. Findings – The Turkish cultural context provides more favorable conditions for implementation of the case method than that of the Western countries where it originates. For instance, Turkey has one of the highest scores of in‐group collectivism. However, a lack of focused leadership and appropriate motivation prevented the pioneers of the method from overcoming the inertia of the incumbent institutional structures. Research limitations/implications – Only one participative technique in one country is explored in this paper. Further studies may usefully extend this approach to other countries in the region with similar cultures. Practical implications – Recognizing the favorable cultural conditions for the case method, leaders of business education in Turkey can adopt this technique as an explicit strategy. Strategic alliances with expert case‐teaching schools will confer competitive advantage both to Turkish institutions and to their students. Originality/value – This paper focuses on implementation issues of an effective teaching tool within one country, thus making its analysis and recommendations both specific and executable. Although examples of case method research abound, this contextual anchoring is rare.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".