Using Design Thinking to Write and Publish Novel Teaching Cases: Tips From Experienced Case Authors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With increasing calls for a greater connection between management education and practice, teaching cases play a vital role in the business curriculum. Cases not only allow instructors to expose students to practical problems but also let educators contribute to the scholarship of teaching and learning. An important reason why faculty members may refrain from writing cases is they perceive it is difficult to develop publishable cases that are also novel. Reviewers of the journals that publish teaching cases are increasingly asking authors to place the case in the extant literature and explain what makes their case unique. To overcome some of the challenges encountered when attempting to write and publish novel teaching cases, this article presents a useful framework—Design Thinking—for tackling the “wicked problem” of developing novel cases and provides experience-based tips to implement the framework. By introducing the concepts and language of design thinking, we provide case writers with an iterative approach that leads to the development of novel cases by identifying and innovatively addressing instructors’, students’, and editors’ demands. We argue that by applying a design-thinking approach, case writers can produce novel and publishable instructional cases.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it