384 J.P.Murmann implying that they would apply to the entire universe of firms(100 in our thought experiment)even if they only studied a small sample of firms in just one country (I have also been guilty of this!).While theoretical statements that are formulated to apply to all firms at all times have the appeal that they seem to be in the same league as achievements in the physical sciences made by people like Newton,they typically sacrifice precision and often do not increase our understanding.In short, the power to explain and illuminate firm behaviour may reside in choosing a level of generality that is much smaller than the entire universe of firms.Given the differences between countries,one may have a much more powerful and robust theoretical statement if one initially restricts the scope of the scientific claim to apply to the context from which the cases are drawn.Let me turn to the work of Stinchcombe(1978)to articulate the methodological reason why this is so. Stinchcombe's(1978)key argument is that powerful theoretical concepts are not developed by initially examining a great number of cases (i.e.,large sample quantitative studies)but by examining a few cases in detail,trying to build deep analogies between these cases.Stinchcombe(1978)explains that deep analogies are constructed by establishing that a great many statements true of case A are also true of case B.These deep analogies amount to a generalization across the cases, giving rise to general concepts that are not tied to a specific case.The more these analogous statements are of an important causal character,the more scientifically important the resulting concepts are.This leads Stinchcombe to a conclusion that may be surprising: But if conceptual profundity depends on the deep building of analogies from one case to another,we are likely to find good theory in exactly the opposite place from where we have been taught to expect it.For it is likely to be those scholars who attempt to give a causal interpretation of a particular case who will be led to penetrate deeper analogies between cases.(21-22) Stinchcombe suggests that the typical objections to case studies,namely that they are not representative,is misplaced when it comes to the development rather than the testing of theories that are already well-advanced.Theoretical advancement comes from building up generalizations case by case,ensuring that the generaliza- tions hold across many details of the cases and further our understanding. REFLECTIONS ON CHILD AND MARINOVA This concept of how powerful theoretical statements are developed has profound implications for research on the development and behaviour of firms and industries in China.Instead of assuming that theoretical statements about firms developed for other countries and/or for the different stages of development also hold in China,it is more productive to build up theoretical statements based on detailed 2014 The International Association for Chinese Management Researchimplying that they would apply to the entire universe of firms (100 in our thought experiment) even if they only studied a small sample of firms in just one country (I have also been guilty of this!). While theoretical statements that are formulated to apply to all firms at all times have the appeal that they seem to be in the same league as achievements in the physical sciences made by people like Newton, they typically sacrifice precision and often do not increase our understanding. In short, the power to explain and illuminate firm behaviour may reside in choosing a level of generality that is much smaller than the entire universe of firms. Given the differences between countries, one may have a much more powerful and robust theoretical statement if one initially restricts the scope of the scientific claim to apply to the context from which the cases are drawn. Let me turn to the work of Stinchcombe (1978) to articulate the methodological reason why this is so. Stinchcombe’s (1978) key argument is that powerful theoretical concepts are not developed by initially examining a great number of cases (i.e., large sample quantitative studies) but by examining a few cases in detail, trying to build deep analogies between these cases. Stinchcombe (1978) explains that deep analogies are constructed by establishing that a great many statements true of case A are also true of case B. These deep analogies amount to a generalization across the cases, giving rise to general concepts that are not tied to a specific case. The more these analogous statements are of an important causal character, the more scientifically important the resulting concepts are. This leads Stinchcombe to a conclusion that may be surprising: But if conceptual profundity depends on the deep building of analogies from one case to another, we are likely to find good theory in exactly the opposite place from where we have been taught to expect it. For it is likely to be those scholars who attempt to give a causal interpretation of a particular case who will be led to penetrate deeper analogies between cases. (21–22) Stinchcombe suggests that the typical objections to case studies, namely that they are not representative, is misplaced when it comes to the development rather than the testing of theories that are already well-advanced. Theoretical advancement comes from building up generalizations case by case, ensuring that the generaliza￾tions hold across many details of the cases and further our understanding. REFLECTIONS ON CHILD AND MARINOVA This concept of how powerful theoretical statements are developed has profound implications for research on the development and behaviour of firms and industries in China. Instead of assuming that theoretical statements about firms developed for other countries and/or for the different stages of development also hold in China, it is more productive to build up theoretical statements based on detailed 384 J. P. Murmann © 2014 The International Association for Chinese Management Research