Why Case Method Teaching Does Not Make Good History

Cases and case method instruction are claimed by some to be a form of history instruction. This point is disputed because case method theory rests on the philosophy of pragmatism and the theory of progressive education, both of which are anti-history in theory and in practice. Consequently, case method instruction is anti-history; in fact, it is the opposite of history. Further, pragmatism, progressive education, and the case method are anti-conceptual, which is anti-human according to Objectivism--the philosophy of Ayn Rand. The essential flaw in case method theory is its failure to distinguish between principles and concretes, which consequently reduces students to perception-bound thinking--which is not thinking at all. A call for marketing history courses as a standard part of the business curriculum is made in order to teach students how to think and, above all, how to separate historical concretes from principles. At a recent roundtable discussion, sponsored by the Harvard Business Review, on "Why History Matters to Managers" (Kantrow 1986), Alfred D. Chandler, Jr. said: "Don't forget, the heart of this [Harvard Business] school's curriculum has always been the case study, and the case study is precisely what a historian does, what a historian is trained to do." I disagree with this statement and challenge the notion that case studies and the case method teach history. While cases are probably the only remnant of history that students get in their marketing education today, I maintain that cases and the case method are woefully inadequate at teaching history. Further, I maintain that the case method actually harms students. Contrary to the claims made to support the case method of instruction, I maintain that cases do not teach students to tolerate ambiguity and to think for themselves without recourse to pat formulas. The case method, indeed, is based on the philosophy of pragmatism and the theory of progressive education, both of which deny the validity of universal principles. But it is only by means of principles that we can know either the past or the future and, consequently, how to deal with the uncertainty or ambiguity that confronts us. ∗ From Terence Nevett and Stanley C. Hollander, eds., Marketing in Three Eras (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, 1987), 201–214.