台灣管理教育工作者們實踐個案教學後，出現正、反不同意見，研究者認為這是有趣，卻待進一步辯證的命題，特別是雙方論點都應該回到教育教學的跨領域觀點，因此，研究者採取Nikitina(2006)之兩項跨領域辯證觀點：情境化（contextualizing）觀點，及概念化（conceptualizing）觀點，研究者提出跨域辯證思考論點一：目前管理教育工作者們針對個案教學之正方意見偏向本體論，反方意見偏向認識論，例如，對於實踐個案教學，提出較嚴厲批判的台灣管理教育工作者，其實批評的是實踐個案教學過程的認識論觀點，其認為若沒有配套措施，貿然實施個案教學，哈佛式的個案教學，反成哈欠教學；跨域辯證思考論點二：藉由Nikitina(2006)跨領域探詢之情境化（contextualizing）角度，深化到哲學根基，表面看似批判個案教學的學者，其實是支持個案教學的哲學根基：建構傾向的教育信念。跨域辯證思考論點三：對於較正面支持個案教學的管理教師，研究者進一步利用Nikitina(2006)之概念（conceptualizing）觀點論證，建議應從個案教學之本體論延伸到認識論，進一步扣緊實踐個案教學教師之知識論，也就是進一步強化大學教師實踐個案教學之學科教學知識（pedagogical content knowlwdge）素養：動態、建構、意義傳遞。本文透過跨領域地視域交融辯證，探索出台灣管理教育工作者實踐個案教學之策略方向建議。 The pros and cons of the arguments upon the case method teaching in the context of Taiwan management education are highlighted. As to the literature review, this study reasons that the gap lies in the substance of the “spirit” and “knowledge” of management educators implementing the case-teaching. It is, therefore, argued that dialectic lens should trace back to its domain-specific knowledge: constructs of the education-discipline. These include the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and constructivism orientation. Two integrated strategies, contextualizing and conceptualizing, from Nikitina (2006) serve as the interdisciplinary perspectives. This study argues that to innovatively implement the case-teaching in the context of Taiwan management education, we should have further dialectical reflection with the ontological, epistemological, and methodological dimensions. This study proposes the analytic framework on the relationships between “case method teaching”, “teachers' constructivism-oriented beliefs”, and “PCK”.
