Advertisement

The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 923–956 | Cite as

A review of qualitative case methods trends and themes used in technology transfer research

  • James A. Cunningham
  • Matthias Menter
  • Chris Young
Article

Abstract

The focus of this paper is to review the qualitative case methods that have been used in technology transfer research over the last 20 years from 1996 to 2015. Case methods allow for more in-depth analyses and provide the opportunity to place research into a certain context due to the selection of e.g. specific sectors, institutions, countries, etc. Using a systematic literature review of five of the top journals in the field of technology transfer research, namely Journal of Technology Transfer, Research Policy, Science and Public Policy, R&D Management and Technovation, it yielded 107 articles using the search terms: “Technology Transfer” AND (“Case Study” OR “Case Method” OR “Qualitative”). Our findings indicate a clustering of themes using qualitative case methods around technology transfer mechanisms and TTOs, academic entrepreneurship, university-industry collaboration, commercialization as well as R&D and firm knowledge transfer. We also identify trends in case method technology transfer research with respect to authorship, location of papers, sectoral contexts, data collection, numbers of cases and data analysis software. We conclude our paper discussing the implications of trends and themes and suggest that researchers need to reflect on used terminology and their utilization and postulate a need for more plurality of data collection methods.

Keywords

Technology transfer Case method Case study Qualitative Research methods Data collection Cases Commercialization Academic entrepreneurship 

JEL Classification

C42 O31 O32 O33 O34 L6 L7 L8 L9 

Notes

Acknowledgments

James A. Cunningham acknowledges the funding support of Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) and co-funded under the European Regional Development Fund under Grant Number 13/RC/2073.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Licht, G. (2016). National systems of innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer,. doi: 10.1007/s10961-016-9481-8.Google Scholar
  2. Acworth, E. (2008). University–industry engagement: The formation of the Knowledge Integration Community (KIC) model at the Cambridge-MIT Institute. Research Policy, 37(8), 1241–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albors, J., Hervas, J. L., & Hidalgo, A. (2006). Analysing High Technology Diffusion and Public Transference Programs—The Case of the European Game Program. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(6), 647–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersen, M. M. (2011). Silent innovation: Corporate strategizing in early nanotechnology evolution. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(6), 680–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asheim, B. T., & Isaksen, A. (2002). Regional innovation systems: The integration of local ‘sticky’ and global ‘ubiquitous’ knowledge. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(1), 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., Paleari, S., & Vismara, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial finance and technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Wright, M. (2014). Technology transfer in a global economy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bach, L., Cohendet, P., & Schenk, E. (2002). Technological transfers from the European space programs: A dynamic view and comparison with other R&D projects. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(4), 321–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Backman, M., Börjesson, S., & Setterberg, S. (2007). Working with concepts in the fuzzy front end: Exploring the context for innovation for different types of concepts at Volvo Cars. R&D Management, 37(1), 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bathelt, H., Kogler, D. F., & Munro, A. K. (2010). A knowledge-based typology of university spin-offs in the context of regional economic development. Technovation, 30(9–10), 519–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Becheikh, N., Landry, R., & Amara, N. (2006). Lessons from innovation empirical studies in the manufacturing sector: A systematic review of the literature from 1993–2003. Technovation, 26(5–6), 644–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Becker, B., & Gassmann, O. (2006). Corporate incubators: Industrial R&D and what universities can learn from them. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 469–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., & Mead, M. (1987). The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Beoku-Betts, J. (2005). ‘A lot of them thought I wouldn’t last there’: African women and career advancement in academic scientific careers. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(4), 397–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bessant, J. (1999). The rise and fall of ‘supernet’: A case study of technology transfer policy for smaller firms. Research Policy, 28(6), 601–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices. In Textbooks collection. book 3. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/3.
  18. Bianchi, M., Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2011). Organizing for external technology commercialization: evidence from a multiple case study in the pharmaceutical industry. R&D Management, 41(2), 120–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Boehm, D. N., & Hogan, T. (2014). ‘A jack of all trades’: The role of PIs in the establishment and management of collaborative networks in scientific knowledge commercialisation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 134–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4), 627–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bozeman, B., Fay, D., & Slade, C. P. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(1), 1–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bozeman, B., Rimes, H., & Youtie, J. (2015). The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model. Research Policy, 44(1), 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cacciatori, E. (2008). Memory objects in project environments: Storing, retrieving and adapting learning in project-based firms. Research Policy, 37(9), 1591–1601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Castellacci, F., & Natera, J. M. (2013). The dynamics of national innovation systems: A panel cointegration analysis of the coevolution between innovative capability and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 42(3), 579–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of UK university technology transfer offices: Parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chetty, S. (1996). The case study method for research in small-and medium-sized firms. International Small Business Journal, 15(1), 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cho, H.-D., & Lee, J.-K. (2003). The developmental path of networking capability of catch-up players in Korea’s semiconductor industry. R&D Management, 33(4), 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cooper, C. E., Hamel, S. A., & Connaughton, S. L. (2012). Motivations and obstacles to networking in a university business incubator. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(4), 433–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Coviello, N. E., & Jones, M. V. (2004). Methodological issues in international entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(4), 485–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Cruz-Castro, L., Sanz-Menéndez, L., & Martínez, C. (2012). Research centers in transition: Patterns of convergence and diversity. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 18–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Cunningham, J., O’Reilly, P., O’Kane, C., & Mangematin, V. (2014). The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Cunningham, J. A., O’Reilly, P., O’Kane, C., & Mangematin, V. (2015). Managerial challenges of publicly funded principal investigators. International Journal of Technology Management, 68(3–4), 176–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Cunningham, J. A., O’Reilly, P., O’Kane, C., & Mangematin, V. (2016). Publicly funded principal investigators as transformative agents of public sector entrepreneurship. In D. B. Audretsch & A. N. Link (Eds.), Essays in public sector entrepreneurship (pp. 67–94), Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Daellenbach, U. S., & Davenport, S. J. (2004). Establishing trust during the formation of technology alliances. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(2), 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Darke, P., Shanks, G., & Broadbent, M. (1998). Successfully completing case study research: Combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism. Information systems journal, 8(4), 273–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Davies, A., & Brady, T. (2000). Organisational capabilities and learning in complex product systems: Towards repeatable solutions. Research Policy, 29(7–8), 931–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Debackere, K., & Veugelers, Reinhilde. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34(3), 321–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Denyer, D., & Neeley, A. (2004). Introduction to special issue: Innovation and productivity performance in the UK. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5–6(3–4), 131–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Derrick, G. E. (2014). Integration versus separation: Structure and strategies of the technology transfer office (TTO) in medical research organizations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(1), 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Díaz, A. J. R. (2012). Transferring knowledge in Quebec-Mexico partnerships: The case of the dairy industry. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(5), 631–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Doganova, L. (2013). Transfer and exploration: Two models of science-industry intermediation. Science and Public Policy, 40(4), 442–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Dubé, L., & Paré, G. (2003). Rigor in information systems positivist case research: current practices, trends, and recommendations. MIS quarterly, 27(4), 597–636.Google Scholar
  44. Dul, J., & Hak, T. (2008). Case study methodology in business research. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  45. Easton, G. (2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 118–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Efstathiades, A., Tassou, S., Oxinos, G., & Antoniou, A. (2000). Advanced manufacturing technology transfer and implementation in developing countries. The case of the Cypriot manufacturing industry. Technovation, 20(2), 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  48. Ellram, L. M. (1996). The use of the case study method in logistics research. Journal of Business Logistics, 17(2), 93.Google Scholar
  49. Etzkowitz, H. (2016). The evolution of technology transfer. In S. M. Breznitz & H. Etzkowitz (Eds.), University Technology Transfer: The globalization of academic innovation. Routledge Studies in Global Competition (pp. 3–22). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Fako, T. T., Linn, G. J., & Brown, B. E. (2000). Transferring health technology to South Africa: The importance of traditional African Culture. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(3), 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ferrary, M. (2008). Strategic spin-off: A new incentive contract for managing R&D researchers. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(6), 600–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Festel, G. (2013). Academic spin-offs, corporate spin-outs and company internal start-ups as technology transfer approach. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 454–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Fink, A. (1998). Conducting research literature reviews: From paper to the internet. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  54. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Gagnon, Y. C. (2010). The case study as research method. Canada: Presses de l’Université de Québec.Google Scholar
  56. Gallaher, M. P., & Petrusa, J. E. (2006). Innovation in the US Service Sector. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(6), 611–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Garrett-Jones, S., Turpin, T., & Diment, K. (2010). Managing competition between individual and organizational goals in cross-sector research and development centres. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(5), 527–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ghio, N., Guerini, M., Lehmann, E. E., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2015). The emergence of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 44(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Giaretta, E. (2013). The trust “builders” in the technology transfer relationships: An Italian science park experience. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(5), 675–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Goel, R. K., & Nelson, M. (2009). Determinants of software piracy: Economics, institutions, and technology. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(6), 637–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Golob, E. (2006). Capturing the Regional Economic Benefits of University Technology Transfer: A case study. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(6), 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Greiner, M. A., & Franza, R. M. (2003). Barriers and bridges for successful environmental technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(2), 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Cunningham, J., & Organ, D. (2014). Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: a case study comparison. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 415–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Guimén, J. (2009). Government strategies to attract R&D-intensive FDI. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(4), 364–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Gulbrandsen, M., & Godoe, H. (2008). “We really don’t want to move, but…”: Identity and strategy in the internationalisation of industrial R&D. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(4), 379–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Handfield, R., & Melynk, S. (1998). The scientific theory-building process: A primer using the case of TQM. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 321–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Hansen, U. E., & Ockwell, D. (2014). Learning and technological capability building in emerging economies: The case of the biomass power equipment industry in Malaysia. Technovation, 34(10), 617–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  71. Henry, C., & Foss, L. (2015). Case sensitive? A review of the literature on the use of case method in entrepreneurship research. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 21(3), 389–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Hess, H., & Siegwart, R. Y. (2013). R&D Venture: Proposition of a technology transfer concept for breakthrough technologies with R&D cooperation: A case study in the energy sector. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(2), 153–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., Wan, W., & Yiu, D. (1999). Theory and research in strategic management: Swings of a pendulum. Journal of Management, 25(3), 417–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Hussler, C., Picard, F., & Tang, M. F. (2010). Taking the ivory from the tower to coat the economic world: Regional strategies to make science useful. Technovation, 30(9–10), 508–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Intarakumnerd, P., & Charoenporn, P. (2015). Impact of stronger patent regimes on technology transfer: The case study of Thai automotive industry. Research Policy, 44(7), 1314–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ivarsson, M., & Gorschek, T. (2009). Technology transfer decision support in requirements engineering research: A systematic review of REj. Requirements Engineering, 14(3), 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Jackson, S., & Audretsch, D. B. (2004). The Indiana University Advanced Research and Technology Institute: A case study. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(2), 119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Jain, S., & George, G. (2007). Technology transfer offices as institutional entrepreneurs: The case of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and human embryonic stem cells. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 535–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Johansson, M., Jacob, M., & Hellström, T. (2005). The strength of strong ties: University spin-offs and the significance of historical relations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(3), 271–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Johnston, W. J., Leach, M. P., & Liu, A. H. (1999). Theory testing using case studies in business-to-business research. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(3), 201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Jolly, D. R. (2004). Bartering technology for local resources in exogamic Sino-foreign joint ventures. R&D Management, 34(4), 389–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Juanola-Feliu, E., Colomer-Farrarons, J., Miribel-Català, P., Samitier, J., & Valls-Pasola, J. (2012). Market challenges facing academic research in commercializing nano-enabled implantable devices for in vivo biomedical analysis. Technovation, 32(3–4), 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Kidwell, D. K. (2014). Navigating the role of the principal investigator: A comparison of four cases. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Kingsley, G., Bozeman, B., & Coker, K. (1996). Technology transfer and absorption: an ‘R&D value-mapping’ approach to evaluation. Research Policy, 25(6), 967–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Knie, A., & Lengwiler, M. (2008). Token endeavors: the significance of academic spin-offs in technology transfer and research policy in Germany. Science and Public Policy, 35(3), 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Kroll, H., & Liefner, I. (2008). Spin-off enterprises as a means of technology commercialisation in a transforming economy—Evidence from three universities in China. Technovation, 28(5), 298–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Kumar, U., Kumar, V., Dutta, S., & Fantazy, K. (2007). State sponsored large scale technology transfer projects in a developing country context. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(6), 629–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Lal, K. (1999). Determinants of the adoption of Information Technology: A case study of electrical and electronic goods manufacturing firms in India. Research Policy, 28(7), 667–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Landry, R., Amara, N., Cloutier, J. S., & Halilem, N. (2013). Technology transfer organizations: Services and business models. Technovation, 33(12), 431–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Leahy, J. (2003). Paths to market for supply push technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(3–4), 305–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Leitch, C. M., & Harrison, R. T. (2005). Maximising the potential of university spin-outs: The development of second-order commercialisation activities. R&D Management, 35(3), 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Levie, J. (2014). The university is the classroom: Teaching and learning technology commercialization at a technological university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(5), 793–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (2015). Public sector entrepreneurship: US technology and innovation policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1996). Emergence of a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Science and public policy, 23(5), 279–286.Google Scholar
  96. Libaers, D. (2009). Industry relationships of DoD-funded academics and institutional changes in the US university system. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(5), 474–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2004). Evaluating public sector R&D programs: The advanced technology program’s investment in wavelength references for optical fiber communications. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1–2), 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Link, A., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). University-based technology initiatives: Quantitative and qualitative evidence. Research Policy, 34(4), 253–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Van Fleet, D. D. (2011). Public science and public innovation: Assessing the relationship between patenting at US National Laboratories and the Bayh-Dole Act. Research Policy, 40(8), 1094–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997). Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring intertextual coherence and “problematizing” in organizational studies. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1023–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Macpherson, A., & Holt, R. (2007). Knowledge, learning and small firm growth: A systematic review of the evidence. Research Policy, 36(2), 172–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Maia, C., & Claro, J. (2013). The role of a Proof of Concept Center in a university ecosystem: An exploratory study. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(5), 641–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Malik, K. (2002). Aiding the technology manager: A conceptual model for intra-firm technology transfer. Technovation, 22(7), 427–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Mangematin, V., O’Reilly, P., & Cunningham, J. (2014). PIs as boundary spanners, science and market shapers. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Marcotte, C., & Niosi, J. (2000). Technology transfer to China: The issues of knowledge and learning. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(1), 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2004). Entrepreneurship from the Ivory Tower: Do Incentive Systems Matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 353–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 259–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Matsumoto, M., Yokota, S., Naito, K., & Itoh, J. (2010). Development of a model to estimate the economic impacts of R&D output of public research institutes. R&D Management, 40(1), 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Menke, M., Xu, Q., & Gu, L. (2007). An analysis of the universality, flexibility, and agility of total innovation management: A case study of Hewlett-Packard. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(1–2), 49–62.Google Scholar
  110. Menter, M. (2016). Principal Investigators and the commercialization of knowledge. In D. Audretsch, E. E. Lehmann, S. Vismara, & M. Meoli (Eds.), University Evolution Entrepreneurial Activity and Regional Competitiveness (pp. 193–203). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Meredith, J. (1998). Building operations management theory through case and field research. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 441–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Miles, M. B. (1979). Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: The problem of analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 590–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Moncada-Paternò-Castello, P., Rojo, J., Bellido, F., Fiore, F., & Tübke, A. (2003). Early identification and marketing of innovative technologies: A case study of RTD result valorisation at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. Technovation, 23(8), 655–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Moore, K., & Thiongane, S. (2000). Rural Senegalese perceptions of environmental quality. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(3), 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Morandi, V. (2013). The management of industry–university joint research projects: How do partners coordinate and control R&D activities? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(2), 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Moultrie, J. (2015). Understanding and classifying the role of design demonstrators in scientific exploration. Technovation, 43, 1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2015.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Mowery, D., Nelson, R., Sampat, B., & Ziedonis, A. (2015). Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University–industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh–Dole Act. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  118. Nightingale, P. (2000). The product–process–organisation relationship in complex development projects. Research Policy, 29(7–8), 913–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Nilsson, A. S., Rickne, A., & Bengtsson, L. (2010). Transfer of academic research: Uncovering the grey zone. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(6), 617–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Odell, J. S. (2001). Case study methods in international political economy. International Studies Perspectives, 2(2), 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. O’Kane, C., Cunningham, J., Mangematin, V., & O’Reilly, P. (2015a). Underpinning strategic behaviours and posture of principal investigators in transition/uncertain environments. Long Range Planning, 48(3), 200–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. O’Kane, C., Mangematin, C., Geoghegan, W., & Fitzgerald, C. (2015b). University technology transfer offices: The search for identity to build legitimacy. Research Policy, 44(2), 421–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Ottosson, S. (2004). Dynamic product development—DPD. Technovation, 24(3), 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Park, J. B., Ryu, T. K., & Gibson, D. V. (2010). Facilitating public-to-private technology transfer through consortia: Initial evidence from Korea. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(2), 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Patton, D., Warren, L., & Bream, D. (2009). Elements that underpin high-tech business incubation processes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(6), 621–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Peretz, J. H., & Tonn, B. E. (2005). Evaluating the short-run benefits of six Department of Energy R&D Projects. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(3), 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Perren, L., & Ram, M. (2004). Case-study method in small business and entrepreneurial research mapping boundaries and perspectives. International Small Business Journal, 22(1), 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Peters, L., Rice, M., & Sundararajan, M. (2004). The Role of Incubators in the Entrepreneurial Process. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews., 5–6(3–4), 137–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Pittiglio, R., Sica, E., & Villa, S. (2009). Innovation and internationalization: The case of Italy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(6), 588–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Powell, J., & Moris, F. (2004). Different timelines for different technologies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(2), 125–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Rasmussen, E., Moen, Ø., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2006). Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation, 26(4), 518–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Resende, D. N., Gibson, D., & Jarrett, J. (2013). BTP—Best transfer practices. A tool for qualitative analysis of tech-transfer offices: A cross cultural analysis. Technovation, 33(1), 2–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  138. Rizzo, U. (2014). Why do scientists create academic spin-offs? The influence of the context. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(2), 198–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Roessner, D., Manrique, L., & Park, J. (2010). The economic impact of engineering research centers: Preliminary results of a pilot study. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(5), 475–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Ruan, Y., Hang, C. C., & Wang, Y. M. (2014). Government's role in disruptive innovation and industry emergence: The case of the electric bike in China. Technovation, 34(12), 785–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Salvador, E. (2011). Are science parks and incubators good “brand names” for spin-offs? The case study of Turin. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(2), 203–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Sanders, C. B., & Miller, F. A. (2010). Reframing norms: Boundary maintenance and partial accommodations in the work of academic technology transfer. Science and Public Policy, 37(9), 689–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Saragossi, S., & de la Potterie, B. V. P. (2003). What patent data reveal about universities: The case of Belgium. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 47–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2000). Research methodology in management: Current practices, trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1248–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Scapens, R. W. (1990). Researching management accounting practice: The role of case study methods. The British Accounting Review, 22(3), 259–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Schoen, A., de la Potterie, B., & Henkel, J. (2012). Governance typology of universities’ technology transfer processes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 435–453.Google Scholar
  147. Schoonmaker, M., Carayannis, E., & Rau, P. (2013). The role of marketing activities in the fuzzy front end of innovation: A study of the biotech industry. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(6), 850–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Schultz, L. I. (2011). Nanotechnology’s triple helix: A case study of the University at Albany’s College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(5), 546–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Sedaitis, J. (2000). Technology transfer in transitional economies: A test of market, state and organizational models. Research Policy, 29(2), 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Shakir, M. (2002). The selection of case studies: Strategies and their applications to IS implementation case studies. Research Letters in the Information and Mathematical Sciences, 3(1), 191–198.Google Scholar
  151. Shane, S. (2004). Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh–Dole Act on university patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 127–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Shen, X. (2005). A dilemma for developing countries in intellectual property strategy? Lessons from a case study of software piracy and Microsoft in China. Science and Public Policy, 32(3), 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 640–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1), 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Stoecker, R. (1991). Evaluating and rethinking the case study. The sociological review, 39(1), 88–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Stone, V. I. (2003). Systematic technology transfer: A case study in assistive technology. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(3–4), 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Stuart, I., McCutcheon, D., Handfield, R., McLachlin, R., & Samson, D. (2002). Effective case research in operations management: A process perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 20(5), 419–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Swamidass, P. M. (2013). University startups as a commercialization alternative: Lessons from three contrasting case studies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(6), 788–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Thune, T., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2014). Dynamics of collaboration in university-industry partnerships: Do initial conditions explain development patterns? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(6), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Transfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Villani, E., Rasmussen, E., & Grimaldi, R. (2016). How intermediary organizations facilitate university–industry technology transfer: A proximity approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.004.Google Scholar
  163. Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33(1), 147–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Vuola, O., & Hameri, A.-P. (2006). Mutually benefiting joint innovation process between industry and big-science. Technovation, 26(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Walter, J. (2000). Technological adaptation and “learning by cooperation”. A case study of a successful onshore technology transfer in Tierra del Fuego. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(1), 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Weckowska, D. (2014). Learning in university technology transfer offices: Transactions-focused and relations-focused approaches to commercialization of academic research. Technovation, 41, 62–74. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2014.11.003.Google Scholar
  168. Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. (2011). Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), 740–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Williams-Jones, B., Olivier, C., & Smith, E. (2014). Governing ‘dual-use’ research in Canada: A policy review. Science and Public Policy, 41(1), 76–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Woodside, A. G., & Wilson, E. J. (2003). Case study research methods for theory building. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 18(6/7), 493–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Wright, M. (2014). Academic entrepreneurship, technology transfer and society: Where next? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 322–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Wright, M., Piva, E., Mosey, S., & Lockett, L. (2009). Academic entrepreneurship and business schools. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(6), 560–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Xu, Q., Zhu, L., Zheng, G., & Wang, F. (2007). Haier’s Tao of innovation: A case study of the emerging total innovation management model. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(1–2), 27–47.Google Scholar
  174. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.Google Scholar
  175. Youtie, K., Iacopetta, M., & Graham, S. (2008). Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: Can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 315–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. Zi, A., & Blind, K. (2014). Researchers’ participation in standardisation: A case study from a public research institute in Germany. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(2), 346–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Ziegler, N., Ruether, F., Bader, M., & Gassmann, O. (2013). Creating value through external intellectual property commercialization: A desorptive capacity view. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(6), 930–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Zikmund, W. G., Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C., & Griffin, M. (2013). Business research methods (9th ed.). Mason: Erin Joyner.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • James A. Cunningham
    • 1
  • Matthias Menter
    • 2
  • Chris Young
    • 3
  1. 1.Newcastle Business SchoolNorthumbria UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK
  2. 2.Faculty of Business and EconomicsUniversity of AugsburgAugsburgGermany
  3. 3.Whitaker InstituteNational University of Ireland GalwayGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations