qualitative case studies research methodology

Qualitative case study methodology in nursing research: an integrative review

Affiliation.

• 1 School of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. [email protected]
• PMID: 19374670
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.04998.x

Aim: This paper is a report of an integrative review conducted to critically analyse the contemporary use of qualitative case study methodology in nursing research.

Background: Increasing complexity in health care and increasing use of case study in nursing research support the need for current examination of this methodology.

Data sources: In 2007, a search for case study research (published 2005-2007) indexed in the CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Sociological Abstracts and SCOPUS databases was conducted. A sample of 42 case study research papers met the inclusion criteria.

Methods: Whittemore and Knafl's integrative review method guided the analysis.

Results: Confusion exists about the name, nature and use of case study. This methodology, including terminology and concepts, is often invisible in qualitative study titles and abstracts. Case study is an exclusive methodology and an adjunct to exploring particular aspects of phenomena under investigation in larger or mixed-methods studies. A high quality of case study exists in nursing research.

Conclusion: Judicious selection and diligent application of literature review methods promote the development of nursing science. Case study is becoming entrenched in the nursing research lexicon as a well-accepted methodology for studying phenomena in health and social care, and its growing use warrants continued appraisal to promote nursing knowledge development. Attention to all case study elements, process and publication is important in promoting authenticity, methodological quality and visibility.

Publication types

• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
• Nursing Methodology Research / methods
• Nursing Research / methods*
• Qualitative Research*
• Research Design / trends*
• Terminology as Topic

Fostering Academia–Industry R&D Partnerships: A Study in the Indian Context Using Mixed Methods Approach

• Original Research
• Published: 03 April 2024

Cite this article

• Mahak Bisen   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0003-6426-1656 1 &
• Prakash Sai Lokachari   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1866-6228 1  

While existing studies demonstrated how academia–industry partnerships have contributed to R&D knowledge accumulation and technology transfer, the present study explores the multiple facets of academia–industry R&D partnerships that foster effective collaboration between the relevant stakeholders. Advanced Manufacturing Technology Development Center (AMTDC), a Center of Excellence (CoE) established in the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras Research Park, is chosen for this study. The study adopted a mixed methods approach by employing Interactive Qualitative Analysis (IQA) and Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA). IQA identified the factors influencing successful partnerships at the Center. The IQA findings suggest that 'Team Cohesion' is the primary driver and 'Center Reputation' is the primary outcome of successful R&D partnerships. The study compared academic and industry partners' perceived importance and performance of the enabling factors by employing the IPA. The IPA findings highlighted differences in partners' actions and expectations. The study findings contribute to the existing literature on academia–industry collaborations and partnerships. The study has implications for strengthening ties between academic and industry partners for the team's consideration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Data availability

The data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article or its supplementary materials. Additional datasets generated or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Albahari, A., Pérez-Canto, S., Barge-Gil, A., & Modrego, A. (2017). Technology parks versus science parks: does the university make the difference? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 116 , 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.012

Article   Google Scholar  

Ankrah, S., & AL-Tabbaa, O. (2015). Universities-industry collaboration: a systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31 (3), 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2015.02.003

Atta-Owusu, K., Fitjar, R. D., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2021). What drives university-industry collaboration? Research excellence or firm collaboration strategy? Technological Forecasting and Social Change . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121084

Awasthy, R., Flint, S., Jones, R. L., & Sankaranarayana, R. (2018). UICMM: A Maturity Model for University-Industry Collaboration. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation, ICE/ITMC 2018 - Proceedings , 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE.2018.8436266

Awasthy, R., Flint, S., Sankarnarayana, R., & Jones, R. L. (2020). A framework to improve university–industry collaboration. Journal of Industry-University Collaboration, 2 (1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/jiuc-09-2019-0016

Banal-Estañol, A., Macho-Stadler, I., & Pérez-Castrillo, D. (2018). Endogenous matching in university-industry collaboration: Theory and empirical evidence from the United Kingdom. Management Science, 64 (4), 1591–1608. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2680

Bargate, K. (2014). Interactive Qualitative Analysis—A novel methodology for qualitative research. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5 (20), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n20p11

Behling, G., et al. (2022). Upcoming issues, new methods: using interactive qualitative analysis (IQA) in management research. R Evista De A Dministração C Ontemporânea Journal of Contemporary Administration, 24 , 1–11.

Google Scholar  

Bertoletti, A., & Johnes, G. (2021). Efficiency in university-industry collaboration: An analysis of UK higher education institutions. Scientometrics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04076-w

Bhattacharya, S., & Arora, P. (2007). Industrial linkages in Indian universities: what they reveal and what they imply? Scientometrics, 70 (2), 277–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-0204-7

Bhullar, S. S., Nangia, V. K., & Batish, A. (2019). The impact of academia-industry collaboration on core academic activities: assessing the latent dimensions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145 (May), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.04.021

Boardman, C., & Gray, D. (2010). The new science and engineering management: Cooperative research centers as government policies, industry strategies, and organizations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35 (5), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9162-y

Callaert, J., Landoni, P., Van Looy, B., & Verganti, R. (2015). Scientific yield from collaboration with industry: the relevance of researchers’ strategic approaches. Research Policy, 44 (4), 990–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.02.003

Claver-Cortés, E., Marco-Lajara, B., Manresa-Marhuenda, E., & García-Lillo, F. (2018). Location in scientific-technological parks, dynamic capabilities, and innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 30 (4), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2017.1313404

Cummings, J. L., & Teng, B. S. (2003). Transferring R and D knowledge: the key factors affecting knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management-JET-M, 20 (1-2 SPEC.), 39–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0923-4748(03)00004-3

Datta, S., Saad, M., & Sarpong, D. (2019). National systems of innovation, innovation niches, and diversity in university systems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 143 , 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.02.005

Draghici, A., Baban, C.-F., Gogan, M.-L., & Ivascu, L.-V. (2015). A knowledge management approach for the university-industry collaboration in open innovation. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23 (October 2014), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(15)00377-9

Dutrénit, G., & Arza, V. (2010). Channels and benefits of interactions between public research organisations and industry: Comparing four Latin American countries. Science and Public Policy, 37 (7), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234210X512043

Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29 (2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4

Fernandes, G., & O’Sullivan, D. (2021). Benefits management in university-industry collaboration programs. International Journal of Project Management, 39 (1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.10.002

Figueiredo, N. L., & Ferreira, J. J. M. (2022). More than meets the partner: a systematic review and agenda for University–Industry cooperation. In Management Review Quarterly (Vol. 72, Issue 1). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00209-2

Gerdsri, N., & Manotungvorapun, N. (2022). Systemizing the management of university-industry collaboration: Assessment and roadmapping. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69 (1), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3077447

Goods Sector (2015). National Capital Goods Policy of India. https://heavyindustries.gov.in/sites/default/files/2023-09/capitalgoods_policy22december2015.pdf

Hugo, N. C., & Lacher, R. G. (2014). Understanding the role of culture and heritage in community festivals: An importance-performance analysis. The Journal of Extension , 52 (5), 28. https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.52.05.28

Isaeva, I., Steinmo, M., & Rasmussen, E. (2021). How firms use coordination activities in university–industry collaboration: Adjusting to or steering a research center? Journal of Technology Transfer, 47 (5), 1308–1342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-09886-x

Jyotsna, J. H., & Prakash Sai, L. (2022). Modelling pilgrim-tourist experience in Hindu religious destinations: an interactive qualitative analysis. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change . https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2022.2095914

Karthikeyan, R. D. S., Lokachari, P. S., & Pervin, N. (2018). Modeling wicked problems in healthcare using interactive qualitative analysis: The case of patients’ internet usage. In: Communications in Computer and Information Science (Vol. 949) . Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3149-7_5 .

Krishnan, G., & Lokachari, P. S. (2019). Adoption of health and fitness apps by smartphone users: Interactive qualitative analysis. In: PICMET 2019-Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology: Technology Management in the World of Intelligent Systems, Proceedings , pp. 1–8, doi: https://doi.org/10.23919/PICMET.2019.8893855 .

Lai, I. K. W., & Lu, T. W. (2016). How to improve the university–industry collaboration in Taiwan’s animation industry? Academic vs. industrial perspectives. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 28 (6), 717–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2016.1141404

Lecluyse, L., Knockaert, M., & Spithoven, A. (2019). The contribution of science parks: a literature review and future research agenda. Journal of Technology Transfer 44, 559–595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-09712-x

Lee, Y.-L., & Chen, L.-C. (2016). Using IQA to extract mental models concerning quality evaluation factors for social networking services on smartphones. Social Networking, 05 (01), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.4236/sn.2016.51003

Leite, T. Q., Silva, A. L., Silva, J. R., & Silva, S. E. (2022). A multilevel analysis of the interaction between science parks and external agents: a study in Brazil and Portugal. Journal of the Knowledge Economy . https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00867-x

Levenburg, & Magal. (2004). Applying importance-performance analysis to evaluate e-business strategies among small firms. E-Service Journal, 3 (3), 29. https://doi.org/10.2979/esj.2004.3.3.29

Leydesdorff, L., & Ivanova, I. (2016). Open innovation and and “triple helix” models of innovation: Can synergy in innovation systems be measured? Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 2 , 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-016-0039-7

Maietta, O. W. (2015). Determinants of university-firm R&D collaboration and its impact on innovation: a perspective from a low-tech industry. Research Policy, 44 (7), 1341–1359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.03.006

Malik, T. H. (2013). National institutional differences and cross-border university-industry knowledge transfer. Research Policy, 42 (3), 776–787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.008

Manotungvorapun, N., & Gerdsri, N. (2017). From literature to practice: Selection criteria for industry-university partners. In: PICMET 2016 - Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology: Technology Management For Social Innovation, Proceedings , 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1109/PICMET.2016.7806579

Manotungvorapun, N., & Gerdsri, N. (2022). Systematic approach driving toward effective university-industry collaboration (UIC). In: PICMET 2022-Technology management and leadership in digital transformation-looking ahead to post-COVID Era . https://doi.org/10.23919/PICMET53225.2022.9882744

Manotungvorapun, N., & Gerdsri, N. (2021). University-industry collaboration: assessing the matching quality between companies and academic partners. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 68 (5), 1418–1435. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2019.2910154

Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41 (1), 77–79. https://doi.org/10.2307/1250495

Marx, J., & de Swardt, C. J. (2023). An interactive qualitative analysis of academics’ views of a competency-based undergraduate qualification in risk management. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 15(3), 471–494. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRFM-03-2022-0039

Meyer, M., Kuusisto, J., Grant, K., De Silva, M., Flowers, S., & Choksy, U. (2019). Towards new Triple Helix organisations? A comparative study of competence centres as knowledge, consensus and innovation spaces. R and D Management, 49 (4), 555–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12342

Mindruta, D. (2013). Value creation in university-firm research collaborations: a matching approach. Strategic Management Journal, 34 , 644–665. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2036

Mohamed, Z., & Yusoff, M. S. A. (2021). Malcolm Baldrige approach in university management: an Importance—Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA). Asian Journal of University Education, 17 (2), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.24191/AJUE.V17I2.13408

Northcutt, N., & McCoy, D. (2011). Paradigm wars: the place of IQA. In Interactive Qualitative Analysis. Doi, 10 (4135/9781412984539), n1.

Østergaard, C. R., & Drejer, I. (2022). Keeping together: Which factors characterise persistent university–industry collaboration on innovation? Technovation . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102389

Perkmann, M., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42 (2), 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007

Phillips, F. (2014). Triple helix and the circle of innovation. Journal of Contempary East Asia., 13 (1), 57–68.

Pugalia, S., Prakash Sai, L., & Di Cetindamar, K. (2020). Personal networks’ influence on student entrepreneurs: a qualitative study. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management . https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877020500376

Ravi, R., & Janodia, M. D. (2022a). Factors affecting technology transfer and commercialization of university research in India: a cross-sectional study. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13 (1), 787–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00747-4

Ravi, R., & Janodia, M. D. (2022b). University-industry technology transfer in India: a plausible model based on success stories from the USA, Japan, and Israel. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13 (2), 1692–1713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-022-00908-z

Rõigas, K., Mohnen, P., & Varblane, U. (2018). Which firms use universities as cooperation partners? A comparative view in Europe. International Journal of Technology Management, 76 (1–2), 32–57. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2018.088703

Rossi, F., Caloffi, A., Colovic, A., & Russo, M. (2022). New business models for public innovation intermediaries supporting emerging innovation systems: The case of the Internet of Things. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, 121357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121357

Rybnicek, R., & Königsgruber, R. (2019). What makes industry–university collaboration succeed? A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Business Economics, 89 (2), 221–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-018-0916-6

Díez-Vial, I., & Montoro-Sánchez, Á. (2016). How knowledge links with universities may foster innovation: The case of a science park. Technovation , 50, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.09.001

Scandura, A. (2016). University–industry collaboration and firms' R&D effort. Research Policy, 45 (9), 1907–1922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.06.009

Silva, M. D., Al-Tabbaa, O., & Pinto, J. (2023). Academics engaging in knowledge transfer and co-creation: push causation and pull effectuation? Research Policy, 52 (2), 104668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104668

Slack, N. (1994). The importance-performance matrix as a determinant of improvement priority. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14 (5), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579410056803

Taheri, M., & van Geenhuizen, M. (2016). Teams’ boundary-spanning capacity at university: performance of technology projects in commercialization. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 111 , 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.003

Tailab, M. M. K. (2020). Using importance-performance matrix analysis to evaluate the financial performance of American banks during the financial crisis. SAGE Open . https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020902079

Theeranattapong, T., Pickernell, D., & Simms, C. (2021). Systematic literature review paper: the regional innovation system-university-science park nexus. Journal of Technology Transfer . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09837-y

Ting, S. H., Yahya, S., & Tan, C. L. (2020). Importance-performance matrix analysis of the researcher’s competence in the formation of university-industry collaboration using smart PLS. Public Organization Review, 20 , 249–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-018-00435-z

Wang, C. H., Chang, C. H., & Shen, G. C. (2015). The effect of inbound open innovation on firm performance: Evidence from high-tech industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 99, 222–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.006

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their insightful suggestions that helped us improve the quality of our paper.

This research received no specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The author(s) received no financial support for this article's research, authorship, or publication.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Management Studies (DoMS), Indian Institute of Technology Madras, 1st Cross Rd, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600036, India

Mahak Bisen & Prakash Sai Lokachari

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Mahak Bisen: conceptualization, data curation, methodology, formal analysis and investigation, writing—original draft preparation, writing review and editing. Prakash Sai L: supervision, conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis and investigation, writing—review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mahak Bisen .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest concerning this article's research, authorship, or publication. The authors do not have any financial or non-financial interests directly or indirectly related to the work submitted for publication.

Ethics Approval

Not Applicable.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 471 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Bisen, M., Lokachari, P.S. Fostering Academia–Industry R&D Partnerships: A Study in the Indian Context Using Mixed Methods Approach. JGBC (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42943-024-00091-9

Download citation

Received : 10 October 2023

Accepted : 02 February 2024

Published : 03 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42943-024-00091-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Academia–Industry R&D partnerships
• Center of Excellence
• Research Park
• Interactive Qualitative Analysis
• Importance-Performance Analysis

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research