research cases

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods

What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods

Published on May 8, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 20, 2023.

A case study is a detailed study of a specific subject, such as a person, group, place, event, organization, or phenomenon. Case studies are commonly used in social, educational, clinical, and business research.

A case study research design usually involves qualitative methods , but quantitative methods are sometimes also used. Case studies are good for describing , comparing, evaluating and understanding different aspects of a research problem .

Table of contents

When to do a case study, step 1: select a case, step 2: build a theoretical framework, step 3: collect your data, step 4: describe and analyze the case, other interesting articles.

A case study is an appropriate research design when you want to gain concrete, contextual, in-depth knowledge about a specific real-world subject. It allows you to explore the key characteristics, meanings, and implications of the case.

Case studies are often a good choice in a thesis or dissertation . They keep your project focused and manageable when you don’t have the time or resources to do large-scale research.

You might use just one complex case study where you explore a single subject in depth, or conduct multiple case studies to compare and illuminate different aspects of your research problem.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Once you have developed your problem statement and research questions , you should be ready to choose the specific case that you want to focus on. A good case study should have the potential to:

• Provide new or unexpected insights into the subject
• Challenge or complicate existing assumptions and theories
• Propose practical courses of action to resolve a problem
• Open up new directions for future research

TipIf your research is more practical in nature and aims to simultaneously investigate an issue as you solve it, consider conducting action research instead.

Unlike quantitative or experimental research , a strong case study does not require a random or representative sample. In fact, case studies often deliberately focus on unusual, neglected, or outlying cases which may shed new light on the research problem.

Example of an outlying case studyIn the 1960s the town of Roseto, Pennsylvania was discovered to have extremely low rates of heart disease compared to the US average. It became an important case study for understanding previously neglected causes of heart disease.

However, you can also choose a more common or representative case to exemplify a particular category, experience or phenomenon.

Example of a representative case studyIn the 1920s, two sociologists used Muncie, Indiana as a case study of a typical American city that supposedly exemplified the changing culture of the US at the time.

While case studies focus more on concrete details than general theories, they should usually have some connection with theory in the field. This way the case study is not just an isolated description, but is integrated into existing knowledge about the topic. It might aim to:

• Exemplify a theory by showing how it explains the case under investigation
• Expand on a theory by uncovering new concepts and ideas that need to be incorporated
• Challenge a theory by exploring an outlier case that doesn’t fit with established assumptions

To ensure that your analysis of the case has a solid academic grounding, you should conduct a literature review of sources related to the topic and develop a theoretical framework . This means identifying key concepts and theories to guide your analysis and interpretation.

There are many different research methods you can use to collect data on your subject. Case studies tend to focus on qualitative data using methods such as interviews , observations , and analysis of primary and secondary sources (e.g., newspaper articles, photographs, official records). Sometimes a case study will also collect quantitative data.

Example of a mixed methods case studyFor a case study of a wind farm development in a rural area, you could collect quantitative data on employment rates and business revenue, collect qualitative data on local people’s perceptions and experiences, and analyze local and national media coverage of the development.

The aim is to gain as thorough an understanding as possible of the case and its context.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

In writing up the case study, you need to bring together all the relevant aspects to give as complete a picture as possible of the subject.

How you report your findings depends on the type of research you are doing. Some case studies are structured like a standard scientific paper or thesis , with separate sections or chapters for the methods , results and discussion .

Others are written in a more narrative style, aiming to explore the case from various angles and analyze its meanings and implications (for example, by using textual analysis or discourse analysis ).

In all cases, though, make sure to give contextual details about the case, connect it back to the literature and theory, and discuss how it fits into wider patterns or debates.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Ecological validity

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, November 20). What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved April 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/case-study/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, primary vs. secondary sources | difference & examples, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is action research | definition & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

What is case study research?

Last updated

8 February 2023

Reviewed by

Cathy Heath

Suppose a company receives a spike in the number of customer complaints, or medical experts discover an outbreak of illness affecting children but are not quite sure of the reason. In both cases, carrying out a case study could be the best way to get answers.

Organization

Case studies can be carried out across different disciplines, including education, medicine, sociology, and business.

Most case studies employ qualitative methods, but quantitative methods can also be used. Researchers can then describe, compare, evaluate, and identify patterns or cause-and-effect relationships between the various variables under study. They can then use this knowledge to decide what action to take. 

Another thing to note is that case studies are generally singular in their focus. This means they narrow focus to a particular area, making them highly subjective. You cannot always generalize the results of a case study and apply them to a larger population. However, they are valuable tools to illustrate a principle or develop a thesis.

Analyze case study research

Dovetail streamlines case study research to help you uncover and share actionable insights

• What are the different types of case study designs?

Researchers can choose from a variety of case study designs. The design they choose is dependent on what questions they need to answer, the context of the research environment, how much data they already have, and what resources are available.

Here are the common types of case study design:

Explanatory

An explanatory case study is an initial explanation of the how or why that is behind something. This design is commonly used when studying a real-life phenomenon or event. Once the organization understands the reasons behind a phenomenon, it can then make changes to enhance or eliminate the variables causing it. 

Here is an example: How is co-teaching implemented in elementary schools? The title for a case study of this subject could be “Case Study of the Implementation of Co-Teaching in Elementary Schools.”

Descriptive

An illustrative or descriptive case study helps researchers shed light on an unfamiliar object or subject after a period of time. The case study provides an in-depth review of the issue at hand and adds real-world examples in the area the researcher wants the audience to understand. 

The researcher makes no inferences or causal statements about the object or subject under review. This type of design is often used to understand cultural shifts.

Here is an example: How did people cope with the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami? This case study could be titled "A Case Study of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami and its Effect on the Indonesian Population."

Exploratory

Exploratory research is also called a pilot case study. It is usually the first step within a larger research project, often relying on questionnaires and surveys . Researchers use exploratory research to help narrow down their focus, define parameters, draft a specific research question , and/or identify variables in a larger study. This research design usually covers a wider area than others, and focuses on the ‘what’ and ‘who’ of a topic.

Here is an example: How do nutrition and socialization in early childhood affect learning in children? The title of the exploratory study may be “Case Study of the Effects of Nutrition and Socialization on Learning in Early Childhood.”

An intrinsic case study is specifically designed to look at a unique and special phenomenon. At the start of the study, the researcher defines the phenomenon and the uniqueness that differentiates it from others. 

In this case, researchers do not attempt to generalize, compare, or challenge the existing assumptions. Instead, they explore the unique variables to enhance understanding. Here is an example: “Case Study of Volcanic Lightning.”

This design can also be identified as a cumulative case study. It uses information from past studies or observations of groups of people in certain settings as the foundation of the new study. Given that it takes multiple areas into account, it allows for greater generalization than a single case study. 

The researchers also get an in-depth look at a particular subject from different viewpoints.  Here is an example: “Case Study of how PTSD affected Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Differently Due to Advances in Military Technology.”

Critical instance

A critical case study incorporates both explanatory and intrinsic study designs. It does not have predetermined purposes beyond an investigation of the said subject. It can be used for a deeper explanation of the cause-and-effect relationship. It can also be used to question a common assumption or myth. 

The findings can then be used further to generalize whether they would also apply in a different environment.  Here is an example: “What Effect Does Prolonged Use of Social Media Have on the Mind of American Youth?”

Instrumental

Instrumental research attempts to achieve goals beyond understanding the object at hand. Researchers explore a larger subject through different, separate studies and use the findings to understand its relationship to another subject. This type of design also provides insight into an issue or helps refine a theory. 

For example, you may want to determine if violent behavior in children predisposes them to crime later in life. The focus is on the relationship between children and violent behavior, and why certain children do become violent. Here is an example: “Violence Breeds Violence: Childhood Exposure and Participation in Adult Crime.”

Evaluation case study design is employed to research the effects of a program, policy, or intervention, and assess its effectiveness and impact on future decision-making. 

For example, you might want to see whether children learn times tables quicker through an educational game on their iPad versus a more teacher-led intervention. Here is an example: “An Investigation of the Impact of an iPad Multiplication Game for Primary School Children.” 

• When do you use case studies?

Case studies are ideal when you want to gain a contextual, concrete, or in-depth understanding of a particular subject. It helps you understand the characteristics, implications, and meanings of the subject.

They are also an excellent choice for those writing a thesis or dissertation, as they help keep the project focused on a particular area when resources or time may be too limited to cover a wider one. You may have to conduct several case studies to explore different aspects of the subject in question and understand the problem.

• What are the steps to follow when conducting a case study?

1. Select a case

Once you identify the problem at hand and come up with questions, identify the case you will focus on. The study can provide insights into the subject at hand, challenge existing assumptions, propose a course of action, and/or open up new areas for further research.

2. Create a theoretical framework

While you will be focusing on a specific detail, the case study design you choose should be linked to existing knowledge on the topic. This prevents it from becoming an isolated description and allows for enhancing the existing information. 

It may expand the current theory by bringing up new ideas or concepts, challenge established assumptions, or exemplify a theory by exploring how it answers the problem at hand. A theoretical framework starts with a literature review of the sources relevant to the topic in focus. This helps in identifying key concepts to guide analysis and interpretation.

3. Collect the data

Case studies are frequently supplemented with qualitative data such as observations, interviews, and a review of both primary and secondary sources such as official records, news articles, and photographs. There may also be quantitative data —this data assists in understanding the case thoroughly.

4. Analyze your case

The results of the research depend on the research design. Most case studies are structured with chapters or topic headings for easy explanation and presentation. Others may be written as narratives to allow researchers to explore various angles of the topic and analyze its meanings and implications.

In all areas, always give a detailed contextual understanding of the case and connect it to the existing theory and literature before discussing how it fits into your problem area.

• What are some case study examples?

What are the best approaches for introducing our product into the Kenyan market?

How does the change in marketing strategy aid in increasing the sales volumes of product Y?

How can teachers enhance student participation in classrooms?

How does poverty affect literacy levels in children?

Case study topics

Case study of product marketing strategies in the Kenyan market

Case study of the effects of a marketing strategy change on product Y sales volumes

Case study of X school teachers that encourage active student participation in the classroom

Case study of the effects of poverty on literacy levels in children

Get started today

Go from raw data to valuable insights with a flexible research platform

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 21 December 2023

Last updated: 16 December 2023

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 15 February 2024

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 10 April 2023

Last updated: 20 December 2023

Latest articles

Related topics, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

Research Cases for Use by the NIH Community

Theme 23 – authorship, collaborations, and mentoring (2023).

• Case 1: Transfer of a Project and Scientific Disagreement
• Case 2: Authorship or Acknowledgement of a Post-baccalaureate Trainee
• Case 3: Collaboration and Outside Activities
• Case Study Facilitator Notes
• 2023 Ethics Case Facilitator Training with Dr. David Resnik (NIEHS)
• 2023 Ethics Case Discussion Make-up Session
• Note: IC submission of ethics case completion data is due by 02/29/2024

Theme 22 – Use of Human Biospecimens and Informed Consent (2022)

• Case Study: Use of Human Biospecimens and Informed Consent
• 2022 Ethics Case Facilitator Training with Dr. David Resnik (NIEHS)
• Note: IC submission of ethics case completion data is due by 3/31/2023

Theme 21 – Science Under Pressure (2021)

• Case 1: Science Under Pressure
• Case 1 Facilitator Notes
• 2021 Ethics Case Facilitator Training with Dr. David Resnik (NIEHS)

Theme 20 – Data, Project and Lab Management, and Communication (2020)

• Case 1: Data Access, Analysis and Reporting within a Research Group
• Case 2: Postdoc Leaving NIH Lab
• Cases 1 and 2 for Facilitators
• 2020 Ethics Case Facilitator Training with Dr. David Resnik (NIEHS)

Theme 19 – Civility, Harassment and Inappropriate Conduct (2019)

• Case 1: Gender Harassment, Sexual Harassment, and Consenting Relationships
• Case 2: Freedom of Expression and Civility in the Laboratory
• Case 3: Biases in Mentoring of Fellows and Sexual Harassment
• Study Guide (2019)

Theme 18 – Implicit and Explicit Biases in the Research Setting (2018)

• Case 1: Gender Bias in Academia
• Case 2: Responsible and Equitable Mentoring of Fellows
• Case 3: Diversity and Bias – Approach to Disabilities
• Case 4: Implicit/Unconscious Biases?

Theme 17 – Socially Responsible Science (2017)

• Case 1: Deciding What Study Results to Publish and Transparency in Research Publication
• Case 2: Handling Select Agents
• Case 3: Research Competition and Reproducibility
• Case 4: Societal Aspects of the Responsible Conduct of Research

Theme 16 – Research Reproducibility (2016)

Because this important topic is both broad and provocative, with issues that could be discussed for hours, discussion leaders and participants will need to identify ways to keep the discussion on schedule. Three potential alternative approaches to this are: (a) keep discussion of the entire case concise and well-paced; (b) discuss a selected subset of the sections, labeled by Roman numerals, that are the most relevant to the particular IC and audience, and/or use only selected questions; or, (c) dedicate more than one hour to discussing this case.

• Case 1: Research Reproducibility

Theme 15 – Authorship and Collaborative Science (2015)

• Case 1: Intellectual Input, Core Facilities and Authorship
• Case 2: Authorship Disputes in Multi-Team Collaborations
• Case 3: Clinical Collaborations
• General Guidelines for Authorship Contributions

Theme 14 – Differentiating Between Honest Discourse and Research Misconduct and Introduction to Enhancing Reproducibility (2014)

• Case 1: Handling of Images and Graphs
• Case 2: A Technically Challenging Method Collides With a Hot Topic
• Case 3: Handling of Clinical Data
• Case 4: Sources of Potential Bias and Data Sharing
• Case 5: Research Reproducibility I: Sample Composition and Reproducibility
• Case 6: Research Reproducibility II: Prostate Cancer Serum Biomarker Study

Theme 13 – Data Management, Whistleblowers, and Nepotism (2013)

• Case 1: Whistleblowers
• Case 2: CLUES: Research Misconduct or Sloppy Science?
• Case 3: Data Management in Clinical Studies
• Case 4: Nepotism in the Training and Research Setting

Theme 12 – Mentoring (2012)

• Case 1: Different Mentoring Styles
• Case 2: Non-Academic Staff
• Case 3: Intellectual Property
• Case 4: Personal Relationships

Theme 11 – Authorship (2011)

• Case 1: Co-Authorship – When Changing Labs, Have You Done Enough to Be Included?
• Case 2: Criteria for Authorship and Attribution
• Case 3: Multiple Publications
• Case 4: First Authorship, Publicity, and Multiple Institutions
• NIH IRP Authorship Conflict Resolution Process

Theme 10 – Science and Social Responsibility, Continued (2010)

• Case 1: Potential Consequences of Epidemiological Studies
• Case 2: Scientific Research and the Press
• Case 3: Intellectual Property – Why Use an MTA

Theme 9 – Science and Social Responsibility – Dual Use Research (2009)

• Case 1: Streptococcus pneumoniae Membrane Pump Sequence
• Case 2: Pandemic Influenza Genomic Sequence
• Case 3: An Unusual Wrinkle to Translational Research
• Case 4: Cell-matrix Interaction and Tumor Growth & Metastasis

Theme 8 – Borrowing – Is It Plagiarism? (2008)

• Case 1: Borrowing Results
• Case 2: Borrowing Ideas
• Case 3: Borrowing English

Theme 7 – Data Management and Scientific Misconduct (2007)

• Case 1: Data Management of Computer-generated Files
• Case 2: Handling of Images and Graphs
• Case 3: Appropriate Use of Statistics
• Case 4: Appropriate Sources of Data and Decision to Publish
• Case 5: Handling of Clinical Data

Theme 6 – Ethical Ambiguities (2006)

• Ethical Ambiguities

Theme 5 – Data Management (2005)

• Figure 1 (Image File)
• Epidemiological and Clinical Data Management
• What’s in a Picture? The Temptation of Image Manipulation
• Three Retractions Published in Cell (2004)

Theme 4 – Collaborative Science (2004)

• Case 1: Basic-Clinical Collaboration
• Case 2: When Does a Collaborator Deserve Authorship
• Case 3: Equipment Sharing and Authorship
• Case 4: Assays and Authorship
• Case 5: Collaboration and Credit
• Case 6: The Statute of Limitations

Theme 3 – Mentoring (2003)

• Case 1: Different Supervising and Mentoring Styles
• Case 2: Equal Treatment of Postdoctoral Fellows Sharing of Job Ads
• Case 3: Work Hours and Schedules
• Case 4: Mentoring of Technicians
• Case 5: Intellectual Property Mentor’s Use of Fellow’s Research Proposal
• Case 6: Future Collaborations for Tenuretrack Investigators
• Case 7: Issues Related to CRADA Funding of Trainees
• Case 8: Confirmation of Lab Results Request for Secrecy
• Case 9: Handling of Personal Relationships in the Laboratory
• Case 10: Dealing with A Substance Abuse Problem in the Laboratory
• A Guide to Training and Mentoring in the Intramural Research Program at NIH
• SD Policy Updates for Mentors and Trainees (May 2002)

Theme 2 – Authorship (2002)

• Case 1: Authorship and the Role of the Absent Researcher
• Case 2: To Be or Not To Be Included
• Case 3: Student Publishes
• Case 4: Criteria for Authorship and Attribution
• http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/rph/2-8.html
• http://www.responsibility.research.umich.edu/casematerialsdir.html
• http://www.apa.org/journals/amp/kurdek.html
• http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/services_ATF.shtml
• http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed410318.html

Theme 1 – Scientific Misconduct (2001)

• Case 1: Scientific Misconduct in the Laboratory
• Case 2: Suspicions of Misconduct in Clinical Research
• Case 3: Ownership of Ideas
• A Guide to the Handling of Scientific Misconduct Allegations in the Intramural Research Program at the NIH
• Intramural Research Program Policies & Procedures for Research Misconduct Proceedings

This page was last updated on Friday, January 26, 2024

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Table of Contents

A case study is a research method that involves an in-depth examination and analysis of a particular phenomenon or case, such as an individual, organization, community, event, or situation.

It is a qualitative research approach that aims to provide a detailed and comprehensive understanding of the case being studied. Case studies typically involve multiple sources of data, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts, which are analyzed using various techniques, such as content analysis, thematic analysis, and grounded theory. The findings of a case study are often used to develop theories, inform policy or practice, or generate new research questions.

Types of Case Study

Types and Methods of Case Study are as follows:

Single-Case Study

A single-case study is an in-depth analysis of a single case. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to understand a specific phenomenon in detail.

For Example , A researcher might conduct a single-case study on a particular individual to understand their experiences with a particular health condition or a specific organization to explore their management practices. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of a single-case study are often used to generate new research questions, develop theories, or inform policy or practice.

Multiple-Case Study

A multiple-case study involves the analysis of several cases that are similar in nature. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to identify similarities and differences between the cases.

For Example, a researcher might conduct a multiple-case study on several companies to explore the factors that contribute to their success or failure. The researcher collects data from each case, compares and contrasts the findings, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as comparative analysis or pattern-matching. The findings of a multiple-case study can be used to develop theories, inform policy or practice, or generate new research questions.

Exploratory Case Study

An exploratory case study is used to explore a new or understudied phenomenon. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to generate hypotheses or theories about the phenomenon.

For Example, a researcher might conduct an exploratory case study on a new technology to understand its potential impact on society. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as grounded theory or content analysis. The findings of an exploratory case study can be used to generate new research questions, develop theories, or inform policy or practice.

Descriptive Case Study

A descriptive case study is used to describe a particular phenomenon in detail. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to provide a comprehensive account of the phenomenon.

For Example, a researcher might conduct a descriptive case study on a particular community to understand its social and economic characteristics. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of a descriptive case study can be used to inform policy or practice or generate new research questions.

Instrumental Case Study

An instrumental case study is used to understand a particular phenomenon that is instrumental in achieving a particular goal. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to understand the role of the phenomenon in achieving the goal.

For Example, a researcher might conduct an instrumental case study on a particular policy to understand its impact on achieving a particular goal, such as reducing poverty. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of an instrumental case study can be used to inform policy or practice or generate new research questions.

Case Study Data Collection Methods

Here are some common data collection methods for case studies:

Interviews involve asking questions to individuals who have knowledge or experience relevant to the case study. Interviews can be structured (where the same questions are asked to all participants) or unstructured (where the interviewer follows up on the responses with further questions). Interviews can be conducted in person, over the phone, or through video conferencing.

Observations

Observations involve watching and recording the behavior and activities of individuals or groups relevant to the case study. Observations can be participant (where the researcher actively participates in the activities) or non-participant (where the researcher observes from a distance). Observations can be recorded using notes, audio or video recordings, or photographs.

Documents can be used as a source of information for case studies. Documents can include reports, memos, emails, letters, and other written materials related to the case study. Documents can be collected from the case study participants or from public sources.

Surveys involve asking a set of questions to a sample of individuals relevant to the case study. Surveys can be administered in person, over the phone, through mail or email, or online. Surveys can be used to gather information on attitudes, opinions, or behaviors related to the case study.

Artifacts are physical objects relevant to the case study. Artifacts can include tools, equipment, products, or other objects that provide insights into the case study phenomenon.

How to conduct Case Study Research

Conducting a case study research involves several steps that need to be followed to ensure the quality and rigor of the study. Here are the steps to conduct case study research:

• Define the research questions: The first step in conducting a case study research is to define the research questions. The research questions should be specific, measurable, and relevant to the case study phenomenon under investigation.
• Select the case: The next step is to select the case or cases to be studied. The case should be relevant to the research questions and should provide rich and diverse data that can be used to answer the research questions.
• Collect data: Data can be collected using various methods, such as interviews, observations, documents, surveys, and artifacts. The data collection method should be selected based on the research questions and the nature of the case study phenomenon.
• Analyze the data: The data collected from the case study should be analyzed using various techniques, such as content analysis, thematic analysis, or grounded theory. The analysis should be guided by the research questions and should aim to provide insights and conclusions relevant to the research questions.
• Draw conclusions: The conclusions drawn from the case study should be based on the data analysis and should be relevant to the research questions. The conclusions should be supported by evidence and should be clearly stated.
• Validate the findings: The findings of the case study should be validated by reviewing the data and the analysis with participants or other experts in the field. This helps to ensure the validity and reliability of the findings.
• Write the report: The final step is to write the report of the case study research. The report should provide a clear description of the case study phenomenon, the research questions, the data collection methods, the data analysis, the findings, and the conclusions. The report should be written in a clear and concise manner and should follow the guidelines for academic writing.

Examples of Case Study

Here are some examples of case study research:

• The Hawthorne Studies : Conducted between 1924 and 1932, the Hawthorne Studies were a series of case studies conducted by Elton Mayo and his colleagues to examine the impact of work environment on employee productivity. The studies were conducted at the Hawthorne Works plant of the Western Electric Company in Chicago and included interviews, observations, and experiments.
• The Stanford Prison Experiment: Conducted in 1971, the Stanford Prison Experiment was a case study conducted by Philip Zimbardo to examine the psychological effects of power and authority. The study involved simulating a prison environment and assigning participants to the role of guards or prisoners. The study was controversial due to the ethical issues it raised.
• The Challenger Disaster: The Challenger Disaster was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion in 1986. The study included interviews, observations, and analysis of data to identify the technical, organizational, and cultural factors that contributed to the disaster.
• The Enron Scandal: The Enron Scandal was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the Enron Corporation’s bankruptcy in 2001. The study included interviews, analysis of financial data, and review of documents to identify the accounting practices, corporate culture, and ethical issues that led to the company’s downfall.
• The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster : The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the nuclear accident that occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan in 2011. The study included interviews, analysis of data, and review of documents to identify the technical, organizational, and cultural factors that contributed to the disaster.

Application of Case Study

Case studies have a wide range of applications across various fields and industries. Here are some examples:

Business and Management

Case studies are widely used in business and management to examine real-life situations and develop problem-solving skills. Case studies can help students and professionals to develop a deep understanding of business concepts, theories, and best practices.

Case studies are used in healthcare to examine patient care, treatment options, and outcomes. Case studies can help healthcare professionals to develop critical thinking skills, diagnose complex medical conditions, and develop effective treatment plans.

Case studies are used in education to examine teaching and learning practices. Case studies can help educators to develop effective teaching strategies, evaluate student progress, and identify areas for improvement.

Social Sciences

Case studies are widely used in social sciences to examine human behavior, social phenomena, and cultural practices. Case studies can help researchers to develop theories, test hypotheses, and gain insights into complex social issues.

Law and Ethics

Case studies are used in law and ethics to examine legal and ethical dilemmas. Case studies can help lawyers, policymakers, and ethical professionals to develop critical thinking skills, analyze complex cases, and make informed decisions.

Purpose of Case Study

The purpose of a case study is to provide a detailed analysis of a specific phenomenon, issue, or problem in its real-life context. A case study is a qualitative research method that involves the in-depth exploration and analysis of a particular case, which can be an individual, group, organization, event, or community.

The primary purpose of a case study is to generate a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the case, including its history, context, and dynamics. Case studies can help researchers to identify and examine the underlying factors, processes, and mechanisms that contribute to the case and its outcomes. This can help to develop a more accurate and detailed understanding of the case, which can inform future research, practice, or policy.

Case studies can also serve other purposes, including:

• Illustrating a theory or concept: Case studies can be used to illustrate and explain theoretical concepts and frameworks, providing concrete examples of how they can be applied in real-life situations.
• Developing hypotheses: Case studies can help to generate hypotheses about the causal relationships between different factors and outcomes, which can be tested through further research.
• Providing insight into complex issues: Case studies can provide insights into complex and multifaceted issues, which may be difficult to understand through other research methods.
• Informing practice or policy: Case studies can be used to inform practice or policy by identifying best practices, lessons learned, or areas for improvement.

Advantages of Case Study Research

There are several advantages of case study research, including:

• In-depth exploration: Case study research allows for a detailed exploration and analysis of a specific phenomenon, issue, or problem in its real-life context. This can provide a comprehensive understanding of the case and its dynamics, which may not be possible through other research methods.
• Rich data: Case study research can generate rich and detailed data, including qualitative data such as interviews, observations, and documents. This can provide a nuanced understanding of the case and its complexity.
• Holistic perspective: Case study research allows for a holistic perspective of the case, taking into account the various factors, processes, and mechanisms that contribute to the case and its outcomes. This can help to develop a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the case.
• Theory development: Case study research can help to develop and refine theories and concepts by providing empirical evidence and concrete examples of how they can be applied in real-life situations.
• Practical application: Case study research can inform practice or policy by identifying best practices, lessons learned, or areas for improvement.
• Contextualization: Case study research takes into account the specific context in which the case is situated, which can help to understand how the case is influenced by the social, cultural, and historical factors of its environment.

Limitations of Case Study Research

There are several limitations of case study research, including:

• Limited generalizability : Case studies are typically focused on a single case or a small number of cases, which limits the generalizability of the findings. The unique characteristics of the case may not be applicable to other contexts or populations, which may limit the external validity of the research.
• Biased sampling: Case studies may rely on purposive or convenience sampling, which can introduce bias into the sample selection process. This may limit the representativeness of the sample and the generalizability of the findings.
• Subjectivity: Case studies rely on the interpretation of the researcher, which can introduce subjectivity into the analysis. The researcher’s own biases, assumptions, and perspectives may influence the findings, which may limit the objectivity of the research.
• Limited control: Case studies are typically conducted in naturalistic settings, which limits the control that the researcher has over the environment and the variables being studied. This may limit the ability to establish causal relationships between variables.
• Time-consuming: Case studies can be time-consuming to conduct, as they typically involve a detailed exploration and analysis of a specific case. This may limit the feasibility of conducting multiple case studies or conducting case studies in a timely manner.
• Resource-intensive: Case studies may require significant resources, including time, funding, and expertise. This may limit the ability of researchers to conduct case studies in resource-constrained settings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Questionnaire – Definition, Types, and Examples

Observational Research – Methods and Guide

Quantitative Research – Methods, Types and...

Qualitative Research Methods

Explanatory Research – Types, Methods, Guide

Survey Research – Types, Methods, Examples

The Ultimate Guide to Qualitative Research - Part 1: The Basics

• Introduction and overview
• What is qualitative research?
• What is qualitative data?
• Examples of qualitative data
• Qualitative vs. quantitative research
• Mixed methods
• Qualitative research preparation
• Theoretical perspective
• Theoretical framework
• Literature reviews

Research question

• Conceptual framework
• Conceptual vs. theoretical framework

Data collection

• Qualitative research methods
• Focus groups
• Observational research

What is a case study?

Applications for case study research, what is a good case study, process of case study design, benefits and limitations of case studies.

• Ethnographical research
• Ethical considerations
• Confidentiality and privacy
• Power dynamics
• Reflexivity

Case studies

Case studies are essential to qualitative research , offering a lens through which researchers can investigate complex phenomena within their real-life contexts. This chapter explores the concept, purpose, applications, examples, and types of case studies and provides guidance on how to conduct case study research effectively.

Whereas quantitative methods look at phenomena at scale, case study research looks at a concept or phenomenon in considerable detail. While analyzing a single case can help understand one perspective regarding the object of research inquiry, analyzing multiple cases can help obtain a more holistic sense of the topic or issue. Let's provide a basic definition of a case study, then explore its characteristics and role in the qualitative research process.

Definition of a case study

A case study in qualitative research is a strategy of inquiry that involves an in-depth investigation of a phenomenon within its real-world context. It provides researchers with the opportunity to acquire an in-depth understanding of intricate details that might not be as apparent or accessible through other methods of research. The specific case or cases being studied can be a single person, group, or organization – demarcating what constitutes a relevant case worth studying depends on the researcher and their research question .

Among qualitative research methods , a case study relies on multiple sources of evidence, such as documents, artifacts, interviews , or observations , to present a complete and nuanced understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. The objective is to illuminate the readers' understanding of the phenomenon beyond its abstract statistical or theoretical explanations.

Characteristics of case studies

Case studies typically possess a number of distinct characteristics that set them apart from other research methods. These characteristics include a focus on holistic description and explanation, flexibility in the design and data collection methods, reliance on multiple sources of evidence, and emphasis on the context in which the phenomenon occurs.

Furthermore, case studies can often involve a longitudinal examination of the case, meaning they study the case over a period of time. These characteristics allow case studies to yield comprehensive, in-depth, and richly contextualized insights about the phenomenon of interest.

The role of case studies in research

Case studies hold a unique position in the broader landscape of research methods aimed at theory development. They are instrumental when the primary research interest is to gain an intensive, detailed understanding of a phenomenon in its real-life context.

In addition, case studies can serve different purposes within research - they can be used for exploratory, descriptive, or explanatory purposes, depending on the research question and objectives. This flexibility and depth make case studies a valuable tool in the toolkit of qualitative researchers.

Remember, a well-conducted case study can offer a rich, insightful contribution to both academic and practical knowledge through theory development or theory verification, thus enhancing our understanding of complex phenomena in their real-world contexts.

What is the purpose of a case study?

Case study research aims for a more comprehensive understanding of phenomena, requiring various research methods to gather information for qualitative analysis . Ultimately, a case study can allow the researcher to gain insight into a particular object of inquiry and develop a theoretical framework relevant to the research inquiry.

Why use case studies in qualitative research?

Using case studies as a research strategy depends mainly on the nature of the research question and the researcher's access to the data.

Conducting case study research provides a level of detail and contextual richness that other research methods might not offer. They are beneficial when there's a need to understand complex social phenomena within their natural contexts.

The explanatory, exploratory, and descriptive roles of case studies

Case studies can take on various roles depending on the research objectives. They can be exploratory when the research aims to discover new phenomena or define new research questions; they are descriptive when the objective is to depict a phenomenon within its context in a detailed manner; and they can be explanatory if the goal is to understand specific relationships within the studied context. Thus, the versatility of case studies allows researchers to approach their topic from different angles, offering multiple ways to uncover and interpret the data .

The impact of case studies on knowledge development

Case studies play a significant role in knowledge development across various disciplines. Analysis of cases provides an avenue for researchers to explore phenomena within their context based on the collected data.

This can result in the production of rich, practical insights that can be instrumental in both theory-building and practice. Case studies allow researchers to delve into the intricacies and complexities of real-life situations, uncovering insights that might otherwise remain hidden.

Types of case studies

In qualitative research , a case study is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Depending on the nature of the research question and the specific objectives of the study, researchers might choose to use different types of case studies. These types differ in their focus, methodology, and the level of detail they provide about the phenomenon under investigation.

Understanding these types is crucial for selecting the most appropriate approach for your research project and effectively achieving your research goals. Let's briefly look at the main types of case studies.

Exploratory case studies

Exploratory case studies are typically conducted to develop a theory or framework around an understudied phenomenon. They can also serve as a precursor to a larger-scale research project. Exploratory case studies are useful when a researcher wants to identify the key issues or questions which can spur more extensive study or be used to develop propositions for further research. These case studies are characterized by flexibility, allowing researchers to explore various aspects of a phenomenon as they emerge, which can also form the foundation for subsequent studies.

Descriptive case studies

Descriptive case studies aim to provide a complete and accurate representation of a phenomenon or event within its context. These case studies are often based on an established theoretical framework, which guides how data is collected and analyzed. The researcher is concerned with describing the phenomenon in detail, as it occurs naturally, without trying to influence or manipulate it.

Explanatory case studies

Explanatory case studies are focused on explanation - they seek to clarify how or why certain phenomena occur. Often used in complex, real-life situations, they can be particularly valuable in clarifying causal relationships among concepts and understanding the interplay between different factors within a specific context.

Intrinsic, instrumental, and collective case studies

These three categories of case studies focus on the nature and purpose of the study. An intrinsic case study is conducted when a researcher has an inherent interest in the case itself. Instrumental case studies are employed when the case is used to provide insight into a particular issue or phenomenon. A collective case study, on the other hand, involves studying multiple cases simultaneously to investigate some general phenomena.

Each type of case study serves a different purpose and has its own strengths and challenges. The selection of the type should be guided by the research question and objectives, as well as the context and constraints of the research.

The flexibility, depth, and contextual richness offered by case studies make this approach an excellent research method for various fields of study. They enable researchers to investigate real-world phenomena within their specific contexts, capturing nuances that other research methods might miss. Across numerous fields, case studies provide valuable insights into complex issues.

Critical information systems research

Case studies provide a detailed understanding of the role and impact of information systems in different contexts. They offer a platform to explore how information systems are designed, implemented, and used and how they interact with various social, economic, and political factors. Case studies in this field often focus on examining the intricate relationship between technology, organizational processes, and user behavior, helping to uncover insights that can inform better system design and implementation.

Health research

Health research is another field where case studies are highly valuable. They offer a way to explore patient experiences, healthcare delivery processes, and the impact of various interventions in a real-world context.

Case studies can provide a deep understanding of a patient's journey, giving insights into the intricacies of disease progression, treatment effects, and the psychosocial aspects of health and illness.

Asthma research studies

Specifically within medical research, studies on asthma often employ case studies to explore the individual and environmental factors that influence asthma development, management, and outcomes. A case study can provide rich, detailed data about individual patients' experiences, from the triggers and symptoms they experience to the effectiveness of various management strategies. This can be crucial for developing patient-centered asthma care approaches.

Other fields

Apart from the fields mentioned, case studies are also extensively used in business and management research, education research, and political sciences, among many others. They provide an opportunity to delve into the intricacies of real-world situations, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of various phenomena.

Case studies, with their depth and contextual focus, offer unique insights across these varied fields. They allow researchers to illuminate the complexities of real-life situations, contributing to both theory and practice.

Whatever field you're in, ATLAS.ti puts your data to work for you

Download a free trial of ATLAS.ti to turn your data into insights.

Understanding the key elements of case study design is crucial for conducting rigorous and impactful case study research. A well-structured design guides the researcher through the process, ensuring that the study is methodologically sound and its findings are reliable and valid. The main elements of case study design include the research question , propositions, units of analysis, and the logic linking the data to the propositions.

The research question is the foundation of any research study. A good research question guides the direction of the study and informs the selection of the case, the methods of collecting data, and the analysis techniques. A well-formulated research question in case study research is typically clear, focused, and complex enough to merit further detailed examination of the relevant case(s).

Propositions

Propositions, though not necessary in every case study, provide a direction by stating what we might expect to find in the data collected. They guide how data is collected and analyzed by helping researchers focus on specific aspects of the case. They are particularly important in explanatory case studies, which seek to understand the relationships among concepts within the studied phenomenon.

Units of analysis

The unit of analysis refers to the case, or the main entity or entities that are being analyzed in the study. In case study research, the unit of analysis can be an individual, a group, an organization, a decision, an event, or even a time period. It's crucial to clearly define the unit of analysis, as it shapes the qualitative data analysis process by allowing the researcher to analyze a particular case and synthesize analysis across multiple case studies to draw conclusions.

Argumentation

This refers to the inferential model that allows researchers to draw conclusions from the data. The researcher needs to ensure that there is a clear link between the data, the propositions (if any), and the conclusions drawn. This argumentation is what enables the researcher to make valid and credible inferences about the phenomenon under study.

Understanding and carefully considering these elements in the design phase of a case study can significantly enhance the quality of the research. It can help ensure that the study is methodologically sound and its findings contribute meaningful insights about the case.

Ready to jumpstart your research with ATLAS.ti?

Conceptualize your research project with our intuitive data analysis interface. Download a free trial today.

Conducting a case study involves several steps, from defining the research question and selecting the case to collecting and analyzing data . This section outlines these key stages, providing a practical guide on how to conduct case study research.

Defining the research question

The first step in case study research is defining a clear, focused research question. This question should guide the entire research process, from case selection to analysis. It's crucial to ensure that the research question is suitable for a case study approach. Typically, such questions are exploratory or descriptive in nature and focus on understanding a phenomenon within its real-life context.

Selecting and defining the case

The selection of the case should be based on the research question and the objectives of the study. It involves choosing a unique example or a set of examples that provide rich, in-depth data about the phenomenon under investigation. After selecting the case, it's crucial to define it clearly, setting the boundaries of the case, including the time period and the specific context.

Previous research can help guide the case study design. When considering a case study, an example of a case could be taken from previous case study research and used to define cases in a new research inquiry. Considering recently published examples can help understand how to select and define cases effectively.

Developing a detailed case study protocol

A case study protocol outlines the procedures and general rules to be followed during the case study. This includes the data collection methods to be used, the sources of data, and the procedures for analysis. Having a detailed case study protocol ensures consistency and reliability in the study.

The protocol should also consider how to work with the people involved in the research context to grant the research team access to collecting data. As mentioned in previous sections of this guide, establishing rapport is an essential component of qualitative research as it shapes the overall potential for collecting and analyzing data.

Collecting data

Gathering data in case study research often involves multiple sources of evidence, including documents, archival records, interviews, observations, and physical artifacts. This allows for a comprehensive understanding of the case. The process for gathering data should be systematic and carefully documented to ensure the reliability and validity of the study.

Analyzing and interpreting data

The next step is analyzing the data. This involves organizing the data , categorizing it into themes or patterns , and interpreting these patterns to answer the research question. The analysis might also involve comparing the findings with prior research or theoretical propositions.

Writing the case study report

The final step is writing the case study report . This should provide a detailed description of the case, the data, the analysis process, and the findings. The report should be clear, organized, and carefully written to ensure that the reader can understand the case and the conclusions drawn from it.

Each of these steps is crucial in ensuring that the case study research is rigorous, reliable, and provides valuable insights about the case.

The type, depth, and quality of data in your study can significantly influence the validity and utility of the study. In case study research, data is usually collected from multiple sources to provide a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the case. This section will outline the various methods of collecting data used in case study research and discuss considerations for ensuring the quality of the data.

Interviews are a common method of gathering data in case study research. They can provide rich, in-depth data about the perspectives, experiences, and interpretations of the individuals involved in the case. Interviews can be structured , semi-structured , or unstructured , depending on the research question and the degree of flexibility needed.

Observations

Observations involve the researcher observing the case in its natural setting, providing first-hand information about the case and its context. Observations can provide data that might not be revealed in interviews or documents, such as non-verbal cues or contextual information.

Documents and artifacts

Documents and archival records provide a valuable source of data in case study research. They can include reports, letters, memos, meeting minutes, email correspondence, and various public and private documents related to the case.

These records can provide historical context, corroborate evidence from other sources, and offer insights into the case that might not be apparent from interviews or observations.

Physical artifacts refer to any physical evidence related to the case, such as tools, products, or physical environments. These artifacts can provide tangible insights into the case, complementing the data gathered from other sources.

Ensuring the quality of data collection

Determining the quality of data in case study research requires careful planning and execution. It's crucial to ensure that the data is reliable, accurate, and relevant to the research question. This involves selecting appropriate methods of collecting data, properly training interviewers or observers, and systematically recording and storing the data. It also includes considering ethical issues related to collecting and handling data, such as obtaining informed consent and ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of the participants.

Data analysis

Analyzing case study research involves making sense of the rich, detailed data to answer the research question. This process can be challenging due to the volume and complexity of case study data. However, a systematic and rigorous approach to analysis can ensure that the findings are credible and meaningful. This section outlines the main steps and considerations in analyzing data in case study research.

Organizing the data

The first step in the analysis is organizing the data. This involves sorting the data into manageable sections, often according to the data source or the theme. This step can also involve transcribing interviews, digitizing physical artifacts, or organizing observational data.

Categorizing and coding the data

Once the data is organized, the next step is to categorize or code the data. This involves identifying common themes, patterns, or concepts in the data and assigning codes to relevant data segments. Coding can be done manually or with the help of software tools, and in either case, qualitative analysis software can greatly facilitate the entire coding process. Coding helps to reduce the data to a set of themes or categories that can be more easily analyzed.

Identifying patterns and themes

After coding the data, the researcher looks for patterns or themes in the coded data. This involves comparing and contrasting the codes and looking for relationships or patterns among them. The identified patterns and themes should help answer the research question.

Interpreting the data

Once patterns and themes have been identified, the next step is to interpret these findings. This involves explaining what the patterns or themes mean in the context of the research question and the case. This interpretation should be grounded in the data, but it can also involve drawing on theoretical concepts or prior research.

Verification of the data

The last step in the analysis is verification. This involves checking the accuracy and consistency of the analysis process and confirming that the findings are supported by the data. This can involve re-checking the original data, checking the consistency of codes, or seeking feedback from research participants or peers.

Like any research method , case study research has its strengths and limitations. Researchers must be aware of these, as they can influence the design, conduct, and interpretation of the study.

Understanding the strengths and limitations of case study research can also guide researchers in deciding whether this approach is suitable for their research question . This section outlines some of the key strengths and limitations of case study research.

Benefits include the following:

• Rich, detailed data: One of the main strengths of case study research is that it can generate rich, detailed data about the case. This can provide a deep understanding of the case and its context, which can be valuable in exploring complex phenomena.
• Flexibility: Case study research is flexible in terms of design , data collection , and analysis . A sufficient degree of flexibility allows the researcher to adapt the study according to the case and the emerging findings.
• Real-world context: Case study research involves studying the case in its real-world context, which can provide valuable insights into the interplay between the case and its context.
• Multiple sources of evidence: Case study research often involves collecting data from multiple sources , which can enhance the robustness and validity of the findings.

On the other hand, researchers should consider the following limitations:

• Generalizability: A common criticism of case study research is that its findings might not be generalizable to other cases due to the specificity and uniqueness of each case.
• Time and resource intensive: Case study research can be time and resource intensive due to the depth of the investigation and the amount of collected data.
• Complexity of analysis: The rich, detailed data generated in case study research can make analyzing the data challenging.
• Subjectivity: Given the nature of case study research, there may be a higher degree of subjectivity in interpreting the data , so researchers need to reflect on this and transparently convey to audiences how the research was conducted.

Being aware of these strengths and limitations can help researchers design and conduct case study research effectively and interpret and report the findings appropriately.

Ready to analyze your data with ATLAS.ti?

See how our intuitive software can draw key insights from your data with a free trial today.

Sage Research Methods: Sage Research Methods Cases

• Start Your Research
• Business & Management
• Criminology
• Social Work
• Political Science
• Citation Information
• Tutorial Videos
• Sage Research Methods Cases
• Sage Research Methods Datasets
• Sage Research Methods Video
• Sage Research Methods Video: Practical Research & Academic Skills

Quick Links

• Sage Research Methods
• Little Green Books  (Quantitative Methods)
• Little Blue Books  (Qualitative Methods)
• Dictionaries and Encyclopedias  
• Case studies of real research projects
• Sample datasets for hands-on practice
• Streaming video--see methods come to life
• Methodspace- -a community for researchers

Most Popular Methods

• Action Research
• Ethnography
• Internet Research
• Literature Review
• Mixed Methods
• Narrative Research
• Observational Research
• Questionnaires

Using Sage Research Methods Cases

• About Sage Research Methods Cases
• Teaching with Sage Research Methods Cases

Research Methods content is often theoretical and abstract and can be difficult to apply to real world scenarios.  Sage Research Methods Cases  offers hundreds of case studies of actual research projects from many different disciplines to show how methods are applied. These cases add color and context to the more theoretical material found in  Sage Research Methods  and underscore the nuances and decisions researchers face when designing projects.

You can do a quick search across all cases or search by Subject area, Academic Level, and/or Methods used. Cases content is also included in search results on  Sage Research Methods  and on the Methods Map.

Each Case contains:

• Keyword tagging for academic subject/discipline, academic level, methods used, and topics of the research
• Learning objectives to underscore what the particular case demonstrates
• Links to the published articles, when available
• Exercises and discussion questions

In  How to Use Cases in Research Methods Teaching ,  Janet E. Salmons, PhD, writes about how case studies can be used to aid classroom teaching of Research Methods. A member of the graduate faculty of the Capella University School of Business and an independent researcher and writer, Salmons has written extensively on research.

“Cases offer something different from an article or book about research methods,” she writes. “The experiences of researchers who confront the challenges of moving from orderly research design to the reality of actual participants and a messy world."

Salmons outlines several classroom activities and assignments to be used alongside case studies, including the following, which is appropriate for an introductory methodology course:

Understand the research approach.

Ask your students to identify the research design elements described by the case author. Once they have identified the qualitative or quantitative methodologies and methods, they will have a basis for understanding and evaluating the research approach. After students review the case, you can ask them the following questions and direct them to outline their initial analysis:

1. What research approach is followed? Is it clear from reading the case? Does the case author utilize qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods?

2. What, if any, epistemological or theoretical frameworks are described in the case? Is it clear from reading the case? Find at least one source to read and familiarize yourself with the selected epistemologies or theories.

3. What methodologies are described in the case? What methodologists are referenced? Find at least one source to read and familiarize yourself with the basic principles and perspectives represented in this methodology.

4. What methods are used to collect and/or analyze data in the case? What methods texts are referenced? Find at least one source to read and familiarize yourself with the basic steps and approaches associated with the selected method(s).

5. Outline information derived from this exploration to create a context for your analysis.

Methods Map

Need to find a Method? Explore the Methods Map!

• << Previous: Tutorial Videos
• Next: Sage Research Methods Datasets >>
• Last Updated: Sep 15, 2023 5:57 PM
• URL: https://sagepub.libguides.com/research-methods

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

• 26 Mar 2024
• Research & Ideas

How Humans Outshine AI in Adapting to Change

Could artificial intelligence systems eventually perform surgeries or fly planes? First, AI will have to learn to navigate shifting conditions as well as people do. Julian De Freitas and colleagues pit humans against machines in a video game to study AI's current limits and mine insights for the real world.

• 12 Mar 2024

Publish or Perish: What the Research Says About Productivity in Academia

Universities tend to evaluate professors based on their research output, but does that measure reflect the realities of higher ed? A study of 4,300 professors by Kyle Myers, Karim Lakhani, and colleagues probes the time demands, risk appetite, and compensation of faculty.

• 24 Jan 2024

Why Boeing’s Problems with the 737 MAX Began More Than 25 Years Ago

Aggressive cost cutting and rocky leadership changes have eroded the culture at Boeing, a company once admired for its engineering rigor, says Bill George. What will it take to repair the reputational damage wrought by years of crises involving its 737 MAX?

• 19 Sep 2023

What Chandrayaan-3 Says About India's Entrepreneurial Approach to Space

India reached an unexplored part of the moon despite its limited R&D funding compared with NASA and SpaceX. Tarun Khanna discusses the significance of the landing, and the country's advancements in data and digital technology.

• 28 Mar 2023

The FDA’s Speedy Drug Approvals Are Safe: A Win-Win for Patients and Pharma Innovation

Expediting so-called breakthrough therapies has saved millions of dollars in research time without compromising drug safety or efficacy, says research by Ariel Stern, Amitabh Chandra, and colleagues. Could policymakers harness the approach to bring life-saving treatments to the market faster?

• 16 Mar 2023

Why Business Travel Still Matters in a Zoom World

Meeting in person can make all the difference for colleagues from different time zones or cultural backgrounds. A study by Prithwiraj Choudhury traces flight patterns among 5,000 airports around the world to show how business travel propels innovation.

• 13 Apr 2021
• Working Paper Summaries

Population Interference in Panel Experiments

In panel experiments, units are exposed to different interventions over time. This article introduces a unifying framework for studying panel experiments with population interference, in which a treatment assigned to one experimental unit affects another experimental unit's outcome. Findings have implications for fields as diverse as education, economics, and public health.

• 22 Feb 2021

Private and Social Returns to R&D: Drug Development and Demographics

Research and development (R&D) by pharmaceutical firms focuses disproportionately on medical conditions afflicting the elderly. The proportion of R&D spending targeting older age groups is increasing over time. Even though these investments in R&D prolong life expectancy and improve quality of life, they have little effect on measured productivity and output growth.

• 15 Dec 2020

Designing, Not Checking, for Policy Robustness: An Example with Optimal Taxation

The approach used by most economists to check academic research results is flawed for policymaking and evaluation. The authors propose an alternative method for designing economic policy analyses that might be applied to a wide range of economic policies.

• 30 Nov 2020

Short-Termism, Shareholder Payouts, and Investment in the EU

Shareholder-driven “short-termism,” as evidenced by increasing payouts to shareholders, is said to impede long-term investment in EU public firms. But a deep dive into the data reveals a different story.

• 22 Oct 2020

Estimating Causal Effects in the Presence of Partial Interference Using Multivariate Bayesian Structural Time Series Models

A case study of an Italian supermarket introducing a new pricing policy—in which it reduced prices on some brands—offers managers a new approach to reduce uncertainty. The approach is flexible and can be applied to different business problems.

• 06 Oct 2020

Design and Analysis of Switchback Experiments

This paper presents a framework for managers to design and run switchback experiments.

• 28 Sep 2020

What Can Economics Say About Alzheimer's Disease?

This essay discusses the role of market frictions and "missing medicines" in drug innovation and highlights how frameworks and toolkits of economists can help our understanding of the determinants and effects of Alzheimer's disease on health.

• 24 Aug 2020

When Do Experts Listen to Other Experts? The Role of Negative Information in Expert Evaluations for Novel Projects

Evaluators of early-stage scientific proposals tend to systematically focus on the weaknesses of proposed work rather than its strengths, according to evidence from two field experiments.

• 10 Aug 2020

COVID's Surprising Toll on Careers of Women Scientists

Women scientists and those with young children are paying a steep career price in the pandemic, according to new research by Karim Lakhani, Kyle Myers, and colleagues. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 02 Aug 2020
• What Do You Think?

Is the 'Experimentation Organization' Becoming the Competitive Gold Standard?

SUMMING UP: Digital experimentation is gaining momentum as an everyday habit in many organizations, especially those in high tech, say James Heskett's readers. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 27 Jul 2020

Gender Inequality in Research Productivity During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Analysis of data from the largest open-access repositories for social science in the world finds that female researchers’ productivity significantly dropped relative to that of male researchers as a result of the lockdown in the United States.

• 08 Jul 2020

Inventing the Endless Frontier: The Effects of the World War II Research Effort on Post-War Innovation

Investments made in World War II by the United States Office of Scientific Research and Development powered decades of subsequent innovation and the take-off of regional technology hubs around the country.

• 06 Apr 2020

A General Theory of Identification

Statistical inference teaches us how to learn from data, whereas identification analysis explains what we can learn from it. This paper proposes a simple unifying theory of identification, encouraging practitioners to spend more time thinking about what they can estimate from the data and assumptions before trying to estimate it.

• 23 Mar 2020

The Effects of Hierarchy on Learning and Performance in Business Experimentation

Do senior managers help or hurt business experiments? Analyzing a dataset of more than 6,300 experiments on the A/B/n testing platform Optimizely, this study suggests that involving senior executives in experimentation teams can have surprising consequences.

Take inspiration from candid case studies focused on project design

Written by the researchers themselves, these eye-opening case studies follow real research projects – walking you through why methods were chosen and how the inevitable unforeseen challenges were overcome. Explore and learn from the realities of research, so often left out of journal articles and textbooks.

Advantages of using Cases

• Discover methods appropriate for your study – search by discipline for methods used successfully in similar projects to yours
• Learn first-hand about the decisions and pivots that researchers often need to make
• Easily adapt cases for coursework with the provided learning objectives and discussion questions

Try it FREE for 30 days

Librarians   Faculty

Or recommend this resource to your librarian

See sample content

Making short-term research projects a success:.

Navigating the Unique Challenges of Doing Research With Marginalized Communities on a Tight Timeline

Sage Research Methods

For information, demos, and pricing, try it free, for 30 days, also available on sage research methods.

• © 2020

Design Science Research. Cases

• Jan vom Brocke 0 ,
• Alan Hevner   ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4953-3900 1 ,
• Alexander Maedche 2

Department of Information Systems, University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz, Liechtenstein

You can also search for this editor in PubMed   Google Scholar

Muma College of Business, University of South Florida, Tampa, USA

Institute of information systems and marketing (iism), karlsruhe institute of technology (kit), karlsruhe, germany.

• First book to provide a set of examples on how to apply Design Science Research
• Experience and lessons learned from leading global experts in the field
• Unified structure of all cases for easy access and comprehension
• Comprehensive introduction to DSR to concisely introduce the most important concepts and frameworks

Part of the book series: Progress in IS (PROIS)

45k Accesses

83 Citations

• Table of contents

About this book

Editors and affiliations, about the editors, bibliographic information.

• Publish with us

Buying options

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

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

Table of contents (13 chapters)

Front matter, introduction to design science research.

• Jan vom Brocke, Alan Hevner, Alexander Maedche

DSR in Information Management

A novel approach to collectively determine cybersecurity performance benchmark data.

• Richard Baskerville, Vijay Vaishnavi

Easier Crowdsourcing Is Better: Designing Crowdsourcing Systems to Increase Information Quality and User Participation

• Roman Lukyanenko, Jeffrey Parsons

DSR in Information Systems Development

Designing evolution paths for enterprise-wide information systems.

• Robert Winter, Stephan Aier

A Design Science Approach to Implementing Flow-Based Information Systems Development (ISD)

• Kieran Conboy, Denis Dennehy, Rob Gleasure

DSR in Process Management

Using business process management for effective and efficient quality management.

• Jörg Becker, Nico Clever, Stefan Fleischer, Steffen Höhenberger, Sebastian Rätzer

Usability Mining

• Sharam Dadashnia, Constantin Houy, Peter Loos

Designing Process Guidance Systems the Case of IT Service Management

• Stefan Morana, Alexander Maedche

DSR in Knowledge Management and Education

Designing platforms to support knowledge-intensive organizational work.

• Sandeep Purao, Arvind Karunakaran

Chunking Big Journeys into Smaller Trips: Combining Peer Creation and Gamification to Design a Continuing Education Concept for Energy Consultants

• Sarah Oeste-Reiß, Sofia Schöbel, Matthias Söllner, Jan Marco Leimeister

A Situational Knowledge Network Nexus: Exploring Kernel Theory Extensions Using Design Science Research

• Magnus Rotvit Perlt Hansen, Jan Pries-Heje

DSR in Application Domains

Setting sail for data-driven decision-making an action design research case from the maritime industry.

• Tiemo Thiess, Oliver Müller

e-Government Capacity Building in Bangladesh: An Action Design Research Program

• Shirley Gregor, Ahmed Imran, Tim Turner

Design Science Research is a powerful paradigm enabling researchers to make important contributions to society and industry. Simply stated, the goal of DSR is to generate knowledge on how to find innovative solutions to important problems in the form of models, methods, constructs and instantiations. Over the past 20 years, the design science research (DSR) paradigm has developed into an established paradigm in Information Systems Research and it is of strong uptake in many other disciplines, including Management Science and Computer Science.

• Case studies
• Artifact development
• DSR methodology
• Evaluation of artifacts
• Growth of design theory
• Application of artifacts
• eGovernment capacity building
• Cybersecurity performance benchmark data
• Designing crowdsourcing systems
• Peer creation
• Gamification
• Situational knowledge networks
• Designing evolution paths for information systems
• Knowledge-intensive organizational work
• Process guidance systems
• IT-service management
• Flow-based information systems development
• Data-driven decision making
• Usability mining

Jan vom Brocke

Alan Hevner

Alexander Maedche

Jan vom Brocke is Head of the Institute of Information Systems at the University of Liechtenstein and Hilti Endowed Chair of Business Process Management. His research focusses on aspects of organizational design, specifically leveraging innovative technology in socio-technical ecosystems. He has published among others in in Management Information Systems Quarterly (MISQ), Journal of Management Information Systems (JMIS) and MIT Sloan Management Review (MIT SMR), as well as Journal of Information Technology (JIT), European Journal for Information Systems (EJIS), Information Systems Journal (ISJ), Communications of the ACM (CACM) and MIS Quarterly Executive (MISQe). He has teaching experience in Teaching experience from 25 universities in 13 countries, including at many of the Financial Times Top 50 Business Schools, such as the University of St.Gallen, the University of Warwick, the Smurfit School of Business, and he has been named an AIS Fellow by the Association for Information Systems (AIS). Jan is an invited speaker and trusted advisor on management and technology serving many organizations around the world. 

Alan R. Hevner is a Distinguished University Professor and Eminent Scholar in the Information Systems and Decision Sciences Department in the Muma College of Business at the University of South Florida. He also holds the Citigroup/Hidden River Chair of Distributed Technology. Hevner's areas of research interest include design-science research, information-systems development, software engineering, distributed-database systems, healthcare systems and Internet of Things computing. He has published more than 200 research papers on these topics and has consulted for a number of Fortune 500 companies. Hevner received doctorate in computer science from Purdue University and has held faculty positions at the University of Maryland and the University of Minnesota. He is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and a Fellow of the Association for Information Systems (AIS). He is a member of ACM, IEEE, and INFORMS. Additional honors include selection as a Parnas Fellow at Lero, the Irish software research center and a Schoeller Senior Fellow at Friedrich Alexander University in Germany. He also is a recipient of the Design Science Research Lifetime Achievement Award. From 2006-09, he served as a program manager at the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) in the Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) Directorate.

Book Title : Design Science Research. Cases

Editors : Jan vom Brocke, Alan Hevner, Alexander Maedche

Series Title : Progress in IS

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46781-4

Publisher : Springer Cham

eBook Packages : Business and Management , Business and Management (R0)

Copyright Information : Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Hardcover ISBN : 978-3-030-46780-7 Published: 24 September 2020

Softcover ISBN : 978-3-030-46783-8 Published: 24 September 2021

eBook ISBN : 978-3-030-46781-4 Published: 23 September 2020

Series ISSN : 2196-8705

Series E-ISSN : 2196-8713

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : VIII, 319

Number of Illustrations : 45 b/w illustrations, 44 illustrations in colour

Topics : Business Information Systems , Information Systems and Communication Service , e-Business/e-Commerce , e-Commerce/e-business , Theory of Computation

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMC Med Ethics

A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases

Anna catharina vieira armond.

1 Department of Behavioural Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Móricz Zsigmond krt. 22. III. Apartman Diákszálló, Debrecen, 4032 Hungary

Bert Gordijn

2 Institute of Ethics, School of Theology, Philosophy and Music, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

Jonathan Lewis

Mohammad hosseini, jános kristóf bodnár.

3 Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, School of Law, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

4 Center for Medical Ethics, HELSAM, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Péter Kakuk

5 Center for Ethics and Law in Biomedicine, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary

Associated Data

This review has been developed by members of the EnTIRE project in order to generate information on the cases that will be made available on the Embassy of Good Science platform ( www.embassy.science ). The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is available in the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository in https://osf.io/3xatj/?view_only=313a0477ab554b7489ee52d3046398b9 .

The areas of Research Ethics (RE) and Research Integrity (RI) are rapidly evolving. Cases of research misconduct, other transgressions related to RE and RI, and forms of ethically questionable behaviors have been frequently published. The objective of this scoping review was to collect RE and RI cases, analyze their main characteristics, and discuss how these cases are represented in the scientific literature.

The search included cases involving a violation of, or misbehavior, poor judgment, or detrimental research practice in relation to a normative framework. A search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, JSTOR, Ovid, and Science Direct in March 2018, without language or date restriction. Data relating to the articles and the cases were extracted from case descriptions.

A total of 14,719 records were identified, and 388 items were included in the qualitative synthesis. The papers contained 500 case descriptions. After applying the eligibility criteria, 238 cases were included in the analysis. In the case analysis, fabrication and falsification were the most frequently tagged violations (44.9%). The non-adherence to pertinent laws and regulations, such as lack of informed consent and REC approval, was the second most frequently tagged violation (15.7%), followed by patient safety issues (11.1%) and plagiarism (6.9%). 80.8% of cases were from the Medical and Health Sciences, 11.5% from the Natural Sciences, 4.3% from Social Sciences, 2.1% from Engineering and Technology, and 1.3% from Humanities. Paper retraction was the most prevalent sanction (45.4%), followed by exclusion from funding applications (35.5%).

Conclusions

Case descriptions found in academic journals are dominated by discussions regarding prominent cases and are mainly published in the news section of journals. Our results show that there is an overrepresentation of biomedical research cases over other scientific fields compared to its proportion in scientific publications. The cases mostly involve fabrication, falsification, and patient safety issues. This finding could have a significant impact on the academic representation of misbehaviors. The predominance of fabrication and falsification cases might diverge the attention of the academic community from relevant but less visible violations, and from recently emerging forms of misbehaviors.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00620-8.

There has been an increase in academic interest in research ethics (RE) and research integrity (RI) over the past decade. This is due, among other reasons, to the changing research environment with new and complex technologies, increased pressure to publish, greater competition in grant applications, increased university-industry collaborative programs, and growth in international collaborations [ 1 ]. In addition, part of the academic interest in RE and RI is due to highly publicized cases of misconduct [ 2 ].

There is a growing body of published RE and RI cases, which may contribute to public attitudes regarding both science and scientists [ 3 ]. Different approaches have been used in order to analyze RE and RI cases. Studies focusing on ORI files (Office of Research Integrity) [ 2 ], retracted papers [ 4 ], quantitative surveys [ 5 ], data audits [ 6 ], and media coverage [ 3 ] have been conducted to understand the context, causes, and consequences of these cases.

Analyses of RE and RI cases often influence policies on responsible conduct of research [ 1 ]. Moreover, details about cases facilitate a broader understanding of issues related to RE and RI and can drive interventions to address them. Currently, there are no comprehensive studies that have collected and evaluated the RE and RI cases available in the academic literature. This review has been developed by members of the EnTIRE consortium to generate information on the cases that will be made available on the Embassy of Good Science platform ( www.embassy.science ). Two separate analyses have been conducted. The first analysis uses identified research articles to explore how the literature presents cases of RE and RI, in relation to the year of publication, country, article genre, and violation involved. The second analysis uses the cases extracted from the literature in order to characterize the cases and analyze them concerning the violations involved, sanctions, and field of science.

This scoping review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The full protocol was pre-registered and it is available at https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/documents/downloadPublic?documentIds=080166e5bde92120&appId=PPGMS .

Eligibility

Articles with non-fictional case(s) involving a violation of, or misbehavior, poor judgment, or detrimental research practice in relation to a normative framework, were included. Cases unrelated to scientific activities, research institutions, academic or industrial research and publication were excluded. Articles that did not contain a substantial description of the case were also excluded.

A normative framework consists of explicit rules, formulated in laws, regulations, codes, and guidelines, as well as implicit rules, which structure local research practices and influence the application of explicitly formulated rules. Therefore, if a case involves a violation of, or misbehavior, poor judgment, or detrimental research practice in relation to a normative framework, then it does so on the basis of explicit and/or implicit rules governing RE and RI practice.

Search strategy

A search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, JSTOR, Ovid, and Science Direct in March 2018, without any language or date restrictions. Two parallel searches were performed with two sets of medical subject heading (MeSH) terms, one for RE and another for RI. The parallel searches generated two sets of data thereby enabling us to analyze and further investigate the overlaps in, differences in, and evolution of, the representation of RE and RI cases in the academic literature. The terms used in the first search were: (("research ethics") AND (violation OR unethical OR misconduct)). The terms used in the parallel search were: (("research integrity") AND (violation OR unethical OR misconduct)). The search strategy’s validity was tested in a pilot search, in which different keyword combinations and search strings were used, and the abstracts of the first hundred hits in each database were read (Additional file 1 ).

After searching the databases with these two search strings, the titles and abstracts of extracted items were read by three contributors independently (ACVA, PK, and KB). Articles that could potentially meet the inclusion criteria were identified. After independent reading, the three contributors compared their results to determine which studies were to be included in the next stage. In case of a disagreement, items were reassessed in order to reach a consensus. Subsequently, qualified items were read in full.

Data extraction

Data extraction processes were divided by three assessors (ACVA, PK and KB). Each list of extracted data generated by one assessor was cross-checked by the other two. In case of any inconsistencies, the case was reassessed to reach a consensus. The following categories were employed to analyze the data of each extracted item (where available): (I) author(s); (II) title; (III) year of publication; (IV) country (according to the first author's affiliation); (V) article genre; (VI) year of the case; (VII) country in which the case took place; (VIII) institution(s) and person(s) involved; (IX) field of science (FOS-OECD classification)[ 7 ]; (X) types of violation (see below); (XI) case description; and (XII) consequences for persons or institutions involved in the case.

Two sets of data were created after the data extraction process. One set was used for the analysis of articles and their representation in the literature, and the other set was created for the analysis of cases. In the set for the analysis of articles, all eligible items, including duplicate cases (cases found in more than one paper, e.g. Hwang case, Baltimore case) were included. The aim was to understand the historical aspects of violations reported in the literature as well as the paper genre in which cases are described and discussed. For this set, the variables of the year of publication (III); country (IV); article genre (V); and types of violation (X) were analyzed.

For the analysis of cases, all duplicated cases and cases that did not contain enough information about particularities to differentiate them from others (e.g. names of the people or institutions involved, country, date) were excluded. In this set, prominent cases (i.e. those found in more than one paper) were listed only once, generating a set containing solely unique cases. These additional exclusion criteria were applied to avoid multiple representations of cases. For the analysis of cases, the variables: (VI) year of the case; (VII) country in which the case took place; (VIII) institution(s) and person(s) involved; (IX) field of science (FOS-OECD classification); (X) types of violation; (XI) case details; and (XII) consequences for persons or institutions involved in the case were considered.

Article genre classification

We used ten categories to capture the differences in genre. We included a case description in a “news” genre if a case was published in the news section of a scientific journal or newspaper. Although we have not developed a search strategy for newspaper articles, some of them (e.g. New York Times) are indexed in scientific databases such as Pubmed. The same method was used to allocate case descriptions to “editorial”, “commentary”, “misconduct notice”, “retraction notice”, “review”, “letter” or “book review”. We applied the “case analysis” genre if a case description included a normative analysis of the case. The “educational” genre was used when a case description was incorporated to illustrate RE and RI guidelines or institutional policies.

Categorization of violations

For the extraction process, we used the articles’ own terminology when describing violations/ethical issues involved in the event (e.g. plagiarism, falsification, ghost authorship, conflict of interest, etc.) to tag each article. In case the terminology was incompatible with the case description, other categories were added to the original terminology for the same case. Subsequently, the resulting list of terms was standardized using the list of major and minor misbehaviors developed by Bouter and colleagues [ 8 ]. This list consists of 60 items classified into four categories: Study design, data collection, reporting, and collaboration issues. (Additional file 2 ).

Systematic search

A total of 11,641 records were identified through the RE search and 3078 in the RI search. The results of the parallel searches were combined and the duplicates removed. The remaining 10,556 records were screened, and at this stage, 9750 items were excluded because they did not fulfill the inclusion criteria. 806 items were selected for full-text reading. Subsequently, 388 articles were included in the qualitative synthesis (Fig.  1 ).

Flow diagram

Of the 388 articles, 157 were only identified via the RE search, 87 exclusively via the RI search, and 144 were identified via both search strategies. The eligible articles contained 500 case descriptions, which were used for the analysis of the publications articles analysis. 256 case descriptions discussed the same 50 cases. The Hwang case was the most frequently described case, discussed in 27 articles. Furthermore, the top 10 most described cases were found in 132 articles (Table ​ (Table1 1 ).

Top 10 most described cases

For the analysis of cases, 206 (41.2% of the case descriptions) duplicates were excluded, and 56 (11.2%) cases were excluded for not providing enough information to distinguish them from other cases, resulting in 238 eligible cases.

Analysis of the articles

The categories used to classify the violations include those that pertain to the different kinds of scientific misconduct (falsification, fabrication, plagiarism), detrimental research practices (authorship issues, duplication, peer-review, errors in experimental design, and mentoring), and “other misconduct” (according to the definitions from the National Academies of Sciences and Medicine, [ 1 ]). Each case could involve more than one type of violation. The majority of cases presented more than one violation or ethical issue, with a mean of 1.56 violations per case. Figure  2 presents the frequency of each violation tagged to the articles. Falsification and fabrication were the most frequently tagged violations. The violations accounted respectively for 29.1% and 30.0% of the number of taggings (n = 780), and they were involved in 46.8% and 45.4% of the articles (n = 500 case descriptions). Problems with informed consent represented 9.1% of the number of taggings and 14% of the articles, followed by patient safety (6.7% and 10.4%) and plagiarism (5.4% and 8.4%). Detrimental research practices, such as authorship issues, duplication, peer-review, errors in experimental design, mentoring, and self-citation were mentioned cumulatively in 7.0% of the articles.

Tagged violations from the article analysis

Analysis of the cases

Figure  3 presents the frequency and percentage of each violation found in the cases. Each case could include more than one item from the list. The 238 cases were tagged 305 times, with a mean of 1.28 items per case. Fabrication and falsification were the most frequently tagged violations (44.9%), involved in 57.7% of the cases (n = 238). The non-adherence to pertinent laws and regulations, such as lack of informed consent and REC approval, was the second most frequently tagged violation (15.7%) and involved in 20.2% of the cases. Patient safety issues were the third most frequently tagged violations (11.1%), involved in 14.3% of the cases, followed by plagiarism (6.9% and 8.8%). The list of major and minor misbehaviors [ 8 ] classifies the items into study design, data collection, reporting, and collaboration issues. Our results show that 56.0% of the tagged violations involved issues in reporting, 16.4% in data collection, 15.1% involved collaboration issues, and 12.5% in the study design. The items in the original list that were not listed in the results were not involved in any case collected.

Major and minor misbehavior items from the analysis of cases

Article genre

The articles were mostly classified into “news” (33.0%), followed by “case analysis” (20.9%), “editorial” (12.1%), “commentary” (10.8%), “misconduct notice” (10.3%), “retraction notice” (6.4%), “letter” (3.6%), “educational paper” (1.3%), “review” (1%), and “book review” (0.3%) (Fig.  4 ). The articles classified into “news” and “case analysis” included predominantly prominent cases. Items classified into “news” often explored all the investigation findings step by step for the associated cases as the case progressed through investigations, and this might explain its high prevalence. The case analyses included mainly normative assessments of prominent cases. The misconduct and retraction notices included the largest number of unique cases, although a relatively large portion of the retraction and misconduct records could not be included because of insufficient case details. The articles classified into “editorial”, “commentary” and “letter” also included unique cases.

Article genre of included articles

Article analysis

The dates of the eligible articles range from 1983 to 2018 with notable peaks between 1990 and 1996, most probably associated with the Gallo [ 9 ] and Imanishi-Kari cases [ 10 ], and around 2005 with the Hwang [ 11 ], Wakefield [ 12 ], and CNEP trial cases [ 13 ] (Fig.  5 ). The trend line shows an increase in the number of articles over the years.

Frequency of articles according to the year of publication

Case analysis

The dates of included cases range from 1798 to 2016. Two cases occurred before 1910, one in 1798 and the other in 1845. Figure  6 shows the number of cases per year from 1910. An increase in the curve started in the early 1980s, reaching the highest frequency in 2004 with 13 cases.

Frequency of cases per year

Geographical distribution

The first analysis concerned the authors’ affiliation and the corresponding author’s address. Where the article contained more than one country in the affiliation list, only the first author’s location was considered. Eighty-one articles were excluded because the authors’ affiliations were not available, and 307 articles were included in the analysis. The articles originated from 26 different countries (Additional file 3 ). Most of the articles emanated from the USA and the UK (61.9% and 14.3% of articles, respectively), followed by Canada (4.9%), Australia (3.3%), China (1.6%), Japan (1.6%), Korea (1.3%), and New Zealand (1.3%). Some of the most discussed cases occurred in the USA; the Imanishi-Kari, Gallo, and Schön cases [ 9 , 10 ]. Intensely discussed cases are also associated with Canada (Fisher/Poisson and Olivieri cases), the UK (Wakefield and CNEP trial cases), South Korea (Hwang case), and Japan (RIKEN case) [ 12 , 14 ]. In terms of percentages, North America and Europe stand out in the number of articles (Fig.  7 ).

Percentage of articles and cases by continent

The case analysis involved the location where the case took place, taking into account the institutions involved in the case. For cases involving more than one country, all the countries were considered. Three cases were excluded from the analysis due to insufficient information. In the case analysis, 40 countries were involved in 235 different cases (Additional file 4 ). Our findings show that most of the reported cases occurred in the USA and the United Kingdom (59.6% and 9.8% of cases, respectively). In addition, a number of cases occurred in Canada (6.0%), Japan (5.5%), China (2.1%), and Germany (2.1%). In terms of percentages, North America and Europe stand out in the number of cases (Fig.  7 ). To enable comparison, we have additionally collected the number of published documents according to country distribution, available on SCImago Journal & Country Rank [ 16 ]. The numbers correspond to the documents published from 1996 to 2019. The USA occupies the first place in the number of documents, with 21.9%, followed by China (11.1%), UK (6.3%), Germany (5.5%), and Japan (4.9%).

Field of science

The cases were classified according to the field of science. Four cases (1.7%) could not be classified due to insufficient information. Where information was available, 80.8% of cases were from the Medical and Health Sciences, 11.5% from the Natural Sciences, 4.3% from Social Sciences, 2.1% from Engineering and Technology, and 1.3% from Humanities (Fig.  8 ). Additionally, we have retrieved the number of published documents according to scientific field distribution, available on SCImago [ 16 ]. Of the total number of scientific publications, 41.5% are related to natural sciences, 22% to engineering, 25.1% to health and medical sciences, 7.8% to social sciences, 1.9% to agricultural sciences, and 1.7% to the humanities.

Field of science from the analysis of cases

This variable aimed to collect information on possible consequences and sanctions imposed by funding agencies, scientific journals and/or institutions. 97 cases could not be classified due to insufficient information. 141 cases were included. Each case could potentially include more than one outcome. Most of cases (45.4%) involved paper retraction, followed by exclusion from funding applications (35.5%). (Table ​ (Table2 2 ).

Frequency of different sanctions in the analysis of cases

RE and RI cases have been increasingly discussed publicly, affecting public attitudes towards scientists and raising awareness about ethical issues, violations, and their wider consequences [ 5 ]. Different approaches have been applied in order to quantify and address research misbehaviors [ 5 , 17 – 19 ]. However, most cases are investigated confidentially and the findings remain undisclosed even after the investigation [ 19 , 20 ]. Therefore, the study aimed to collect the RE and RI cases available in the scientific literature, understand how the cases are discussed, and identify the potential of case descriptions to raise awareness on RE and RI.

We collected and analyzed 500 detailed case descriptions from 388 articles and our results show that they mostly relate to extensively discussed and notorious cases. Approximately half of all included cases was mentioned in at least two different articles, and the top ten most commonly mentioned cases were discussed in 132 articles.

The prominence of certain cases in the literature, based on the number of duplicated cases we found (e.g. Hwang case), can be explained by the type of article in which cases are discussed and the type of violation involved in the case. In the article genre analysis, 33% of the cases were described in the news section of scientific publications. Our findings show that almost all article genres discuss those cases that are new and in vogue. Once the case appears in the public domain, it is intensely discussed in the media and by scientists, and some prominent cases have been discussed for more than 20 years (Table ​ (Table1). 1 ). Misconduct and retraction notices were exceptions in the article genre analysis, as they presented mostly unique cases. The misconduct notices were mainly found on the NIH repository, which is indexed in the searched databases. Some federal funding agencies like NIH usually publicize investigation findings associated with the research they fund. The results derived from the NIH repository also explains the large proportion of articles from the US (61.9%). However, in some cases, only a few details are provided about the case. For cases that have not received federal funding and have not been reported to federal authorities, the investigation is conducted by local institutions. In such instances, the reporting of findings depends on each institution’s policy and willingness to disclose information [ 21 ]. The other exception involves retraction notices. Despite the existence of ethical guidelines [ 22 ], there is no uniform and a common approach to how a journal should report a retraction. The Retraction Watch website suggests two lists of information that should be included in a retraction notice to satisfy the minimum and optimum requirements [ 22 , 23 ]. As well as disclosing the reason for the retraction and information regarding the retraction process, optimal notices should include: (I) the date when the journal was first alerted to potential problems; (II) details regarding institutional investigations and associated outcomes; (III) the effects on other papers published by the same authors; (IV) statements about more recent replications only if and when these have been validated by a third party; (V) details regarding the journal’s sanctions; and (VI) details regarding any lawsuits that have been filed regarding the case. The lack of transparency and information in retraction notices was also noted in studies that collected and evaluated retractions [ 24 ]. According to Resnik and Dinse [ 25 ], retractions notices related to cases of misconduct tend to avoid naming the specific violation involved in the case. This study found that only 32.8% of the notices identify the actual problem, such as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, and 58.8% reported the case as replication failure, loss of data, or error. Potential explanations for euphemisms and vague claims in retraction notices authored by editors could pertain to the possibility of legal actions from the authors, honest or self-reported errors, and lack of resources to conduct thorough investigations. In addition, the lack of transparency can also be explained by the conflicts of interests of the article’s author(s), since the notices are often written by the authors of the retracted article.

The analysis of violations/ethical issues shows the dominance of fabrication and falsification cases and explains the high prevalence of prominent cases. Non-adherence to laws and regulations (REC approval, informed consent, and data protection) was the second most prevalent issue, followed by patient safety, plagiarism, and conflicts of interest. The prevalence of the five most tagged violations in the case analysis was higher than the prevalence found in the analysis of articles that involved the same violations. The only exceptions are fabrication and falsification cases, which represented 45% of the tagged violations in the analysis of cases, and 59.1% in the article analysis. This disproportion shows a predilection for the publication of discussions related to fabrication and falsification when compared to other serious violations. Complex cases involving these types of violations make good headlines and this follows a custom pattern of writing about cases that catch the public and media’s attention [ 26 ]. The way cases of RE and RI violations are explored in the literature gives a sense that only a few scientists are “the bad apples” and they are usually discovered, investigated, and sanctioned accordingly. This implies that the integrity of science, in general, remains relatively untouched by these violations. However, studies on misconduct determinants show that scientific misconduct is a systemic problem, which involves not only individual factors, but structural and institutional factors as well, and that a combined effort is necessary to change this scenario [ 27 , 28 ].

Analysis of cases

A notable increase in RE and RI cases occurred in the 1990s, with a gradual increase until approximately 2006. This result is in agreement with studies that evaluated paper retractions [ 24 , 29 ]. Although our study did not focus only on retractions, the trend is similar. This increase in cases should not be attributed only to the increase in the number of publications, since studies that evaluated retractions show that the percentage of retraction due to fraud has increased almost ten times since 1975, compared to the total number of articles. Our results also show a gradual reduction in the number of cases from 2011 and a greater drop in 2015. However, this reduction should be considered cautiously because many investigations take years to complete and have their findings disclosed. ORI has shown that from 2001 to 2010 the investigation of their cases took an average of 20.48 months with a maximum investigation time of more than 9 years [ 24 ].

The countries from which most cases were reported were the USA (59.6%), the UK (9.8%), Canada (6.0%), Japan (5.5%), and China (2.1%). When analyzed by continent, the highest percentage of cases took place in North America, followed by Europe, Asia, Oceania, Latin America, and Africa. The predominance of cases from the USA is predictable, since the country publishes more scientific articles than any other country, with 21.8% of the total documents, according to SCImago [ 16 ]. However, the same interpretation does not apply to China, which occupies the second position in the ranking, with 11.2%. These differences in the geographical distribution were also found in a study that collected published research on research integrity [ 30 ]. The results found by Aubert Bonn and Pinxten (2019) show that studies in the United States accounted for more than half of the sample collected, and although China is one of the leaders in scientific publications, it represented only 0.7% of the sample. Our findings can also be explained by the search strategy that included only keywords in English. Since the majority of RE and RI cases are investigated and have their findings locally disclosed, the employment of English keywords and terms in the search strategy is a limitation. Moreover, our findings do not allow us to draw inferences regarding the incidence or prevalence of misconduct around the world. Instead, it shows where there is a culture of publicly disclosing information and openly discussing RE and RI cases in English documents.

Scientific field analysis

The results show that 80.8% of reported cases occurred in the medical and health sciences whilst only 1.3% occurred in the humanities. This disciplinary difference has also been observed in studies on research integrity climates. A study conducted by Haven and colleagues, [ 28 ] associated seven subscales of research climate with the disciplinary field. The subscales included: (1) Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) resources, (2) regulatory quality, (3) integrity norms, (4) integrity socialization, (5) supervisor/supervisee relations, (6) (lack of) integrity inhibitors, and (7) expectations. The results, based on the seven subscale scores, show that researchers from the humanities and social sciences have the lowest perception of the RI climate. By contrast, the natural sciences expressed the highest perception of the RI climate, followed by the biomedical sciences. There are also significant differences in the depth and extent of the regulatory environments of different disciplines (e.g. the existence of laws, codes of conduct, policies, relevant ethics committees, or authorities). These findings corroborate our results, as those areas of science most familiar with RI tend to explore the subject further, and, consequently, are more likely to publish case details. Although the volume of published research in each research area also influences the number of cases, the predominance of medical and health sciences cases is not aligned with the trends regarding the volume of published research. According to SCImago Journal & Country Rank [ 16 ], natural sciences occupy the first place in the number of publications (41,5%), followed by the medical and health sciences (25,1%), engineering (22%), social sciences (7,8%), and the humanities (1,7%). Moreover, biomedical journals are overrepresented in the top scientific journals by IF ranking, and these journals usually have clear policies for research misconduct. High-impact journals are more likely to have higher visibility and scrutiny, and consequently, more likely to have been the subject of misconduct investigations. Additionally, the most well-known general medical journals, including NEJM, The Lancet, and the BMJ, employ journalists to write their news sections. Since these journals have the resources to produce extensive news sections, it is, therefore, more likely that medical cases will be discussed.

Violations analysis

In the analysis of violations, the cases were categorized into major and minor misbehaviors. Most cases involved data fabrication and falsification, followed by cases involving non-adherence to laws and regulations, patient safety, plagiarism, and conflicts of interest. When classified by categories, 12.5% of the tagged violations involved issues in the study design, 16.4% in data collection, 56.0% in reporting, and 15.1% involved collaboration issues. Approximately 80% of the tagged violations involved serious research misbehaviors, based on the ranking of research misbehaviors proposed by Bouter and colleagues. However, as demonstrated in a meta-analysis by Fanelli (2009), most self-declared cases involve questionable research practices. In the meta-analysis, 33.7% of scientists admitted questionable research practices, and 72% admitted when asked about the behavior of colleagues. This finding contrasts with an admission rate of 1.97% and 14.12% for cases involving fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, Fanelli’s meta-analysis does not include data about research misbehaviors in its wider sense but focuses on behaviors that bias research results (i.e. fabrication and falsification, intentional non-publication of results, biased methodology, misleading reporting). In our study, the majority of cases involved FFP (66.4%). Overrepresentation of some types of violations, and underrepresentation of others, might lead to misguided efforts, as cases that receive intense publicity eventually influence policies relating to scientific misconduct and RI [ 20 ].

Sanctions analysis

The five most prevalent outcomes were paper retraction, followed by exclusion from funding applications, exclusion from service or position, dismissal and suspension, and paper correction. This result is similar to that found by Redman and Merz [ 31 ], who collected data from misconduct cases provided by the ORI. Moreover, their results show that fabrication and falsification cases are 8.8 times more likely than others to receive funding exclusions. Such cases also received, on average, 0.6 more sanctions per case. Punishments for misconduct remain under discussion, ranging from the criminalization of more serious forms of misconduct [ 32 ] to social punishments, such as those recently introduced by China [ 33 ]. The most common sanction identified by our analysis—paper retraction—is consistent with the most prevalent types of violation, that is, falsification and fabrication.

Publicizing scientific misconduct

The lack of publicly available summaries of misconduct investigations makes it difficult to share experiences and evaluate the effectiveness of policies and training programs. Publicizing scientific misconduct can have serious consequences and creates a stigma around those involved in the case. For instance, publicized allegations can damage the reputation of the accused even when they are later exonerated [ 21 ]. Thus, for published cases, it is the responsibility of the authors and editors to determine whether the name(s) of those involved should be disclosed. On the one hand, it is envisaged that disclosing the name(s) of those involved will encourage others in the community to foster good standards. On the other hand, it is suggested that someone who has made a mistake should have the right to a chance to defend his/her reputation. Regardless of whether a person's name is left out or disclosed, case reports have an important educational function and can help guide RE- and RI-related policies [ 34 ]. A recent paper published by Gunsalus [ 35 ] proposes a three-part approach to strengthen transparency in misconduct investigations. The first part consists of a checklist [ 36 ]. The second suggests that an external peer reviewer should be involved in investigative reporting. The third part calls for the publication of the peer reviewer’s findings.

Limitations

One of the possible limitations of our study may be our search strategy. Although we have conducted pilot searches and sensitivity tests to reach the most feasible and precise search strategy, we cannot exclude the possibility of having missed important cases. Furthermore, the use of English keywords was another limitation of our search. Since most investigations are performed locally and published in local repositories, our search only allowed us to access cases from English-speaking countries or discussed in academic publications written in English. Additionally, it is important to note that the published cases are not representative of all instances of misconduct, since most of them are never discovered, and when discovered, not all are fully investigated or have their findings published. It is also important to note that the lack of information from the extracted case descriptions is a limitation that affects the interpretation of our results. In our review, only 25 retraction notices contained sufficient information that allowed us to include them in our analysis in conformance with the inclusion criteria. Although our search strategy was not focused specifically on retraction and misconduct notices, we believe that if sufficiently detailed information was available in such notices, the search strategy would have identified them.

Case descriptions found in academic journals are dominated by discussions regarding prominent cases and are mainly published in the news section of journals. Our results show that there is an overrepresentation of biomedical research cases over other scientific fields when compared with the volume of publications produced by each field. Moreover, published cases mostly involve fabrication, falsification, and patient safety issues. This finding could have a significant impact on the academic representation of ethical issues for RE and RI. The predominance of fabrication and falsification cases might diverge the attention of the academic community from relevant but less visible violations and ethical issues, and recently emerging forms of misbehaviors.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the EnTIRE research group. The EnTIRE project (Mapping Normative Frameworks for Ethics and Integrity of Research) aims to create an online platform that makes RE+RI information easily accessible to the research community. The EnTIRE Consortium is composed by VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, gesinn. It Gmbh & Co Kg, KU Leuven, University of Split School of Medicine, Dublin City University, Central European University, University of Oslo, University of Manchester, European Network of Research Ethics Committees.

Authors' contributions

All authors (ACVA, BG, JL, MH, JKB, SH and PK) developed the idea for the article. ACVA, PK, JKB performed the literature search and data analysis, ACVA and PK produced the draft, and all authors critically revised it. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

EnTIRE project (Mapping Normative Frameworks for Ethics and Integrity of Research) has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement N 741782. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

Declarations.

Not applicable.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Clinical Researcher

Lessons Learned from Challenging Cases in Clinical Research Ethics

Clinical Researcher April 12, 2024

Clinical Researcher—April 2024 (Volume 38, Issue 2)

RESOURCES & REVIEWS

Lindsay McNair, MD, MPH, MSB

[A review of Challenging Cases in Clinical Research Ethics . 2024. Wilfond BS, Johnson L-M, Duenas DM, Taylor HA (editors). CRC Press (Boca Raton, Fla.)]

Challenging Cases in Clinical Research Ethics may not be a book you take to the beach for a light read, but if you have a role, or an interest, in how we analyze the complex ethical challenges that are an integral part of conducting clinical research, it may be a good book for you. This is a reference book, a teaching tool, and, in some ways, a historical record.

While healthcare institutions have long had ethics committees or even trained clinical ethicists to provide consultation to staff and families during difficult situations in clinical care settings, the specialized practice of clinical research ethics consultation is much more recent. As described in the foreward of the book, the development of this kind of resource was spurred by the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program, a funding mechanism which supports a network of almost 60 medical institutions across the United States to facilitate collaboration that expedites the design and dissemination of new medical advances. Since a requirement of the funding program is that the institutions must have ethical support services, the CTSA-funded institutions created ethics consultation services that focused on the research ethics issues likely to arise from the CTSA-funded work.

In 2014, the leaders of the clinical research consultation services across the organizations formed a group to share information and best practices, called the Clinical Research Ethics Consultation Collaborative (CRECC). The CRECC continues to be an active group, and membership is open to anyone who is in a role related to clinical research ethics practice, including representatives not just from the CTSA-funded institutions, but also from biopharmaceutical companies and independent contributors.

This book arose from the work of the CRECC. The cases discussed in the book are real situations at research institutions across the U.S. for which the persons involved sought advice from their local consultation services, and the consultants brought the case to CRECC for discussion. The editors make a point of saying that by the time of the finished case discussion, each case involved 30 to 50 consultants, and they recognize almost 170 contributors to the book, including most of the best-known and most well-respected research bioethicists.

Each year, the American Journal of Bioethics has published up to four of these case presentations, along with two to four commentaries on the case from different ethicists to provide a variety of approaches, perspectives, and opinions. These cases and the accompanying commentaries comprise this book.

The editors have organized the book around the ethical principles for research ethics that were described in a seminar paper by Emanuel, Wendler, and Grady in 2000,{1} resulting in five main sections focused on collaborative partnerships, respect for participants, fair participant selection, favorable risk-benefit ratio, and informed consent. Because they also recognize that there were many possible ways to organize the material and that someone looking for discussion of a specific topic may want to be able to search in more detail, the book includes three separate appendices; one that lists cases by primary and secondary ethical principles involved, one that lists cases by topic keywords (e.g., pediatrics, Phase I trials, social media), and one that lists cases by values relevant to the discussion (social value, equity, and trustworthiness), as well as a standard index which lists topics, people, policies, and keywords and the pages on which the terms appear or are discussed.

In each section, an editor presents a brief description of the unifying theme of that section, and then short summaries of each of the five to eight cases under that theme. The section then delves into each case in more detail with an introduction that includes any necessary background context (disease details, standard of care framing, existing policy), a case description (often just a page or two), references, and then one to four commentaries.

The commentaries, each by different authors, approach different considerations or aspects of the case, together providing a variety of opinions and a well-rounded discussion. For example, there is a case focused on a request from a study team to unblind a participant’s treatment assignment after an adverse event (to help determine relationship to study drug and whether other participants were also at risk, or whether the event was a symptom of the underlying condition). The commentaries are presented by two ethicists from a sponsor company discussing the ethical issues of unblinding and the impact on study data; an ethicist from the NIH discussing considerations of a data monitoring committee in making decisions that will impact studies; and an ethicist involved in health monitoring programs for chronic illness who discusses issues of community trust and communication. The editors and commentators are careful to focus on the relevant ethical issues and conflicts, and not on operational or regulatory requirements, although they do address those considerations.

Although the cases all stem from situations that developed at research institutions, almost all of the content is relevant to other audiences in the clinical research ecosystem, including situations encountered in biopharmaceutical-sponsored studies that industry leaders have to think about. For example, there are cases that discuss ethical implications of advertising for research participants on social media, whether compensation for participation can (or should) be withheld from a participant who was intentionally deceptive to get enrolled in the study, how extensive the “alternative options” presented in a consent form should be, and whether a patient with advanced cancer must exhaust all possible treatment options before being allowed to enroll in a Phase I study of a new immunotherapy.

There are a number of ways that teachers, trainers, and leaders could use the content of this book both for education, and as the basis for case-based discussions. Overall, I would recommend this book as a resource for anyone in a training or leadership role, both for personal education and as a useful tool for developing training content that will likely prompt thoughtful discussion.

• Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. 2000. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 283(20):2701–11. doi:10.1001/jama.283.20.2701. PMID:10819955.

Lindsay McNair, MD, MPH, MSB, is a physician, research ethicist, and Founder and Principal Consultant of Equipoise Consulting LLC, which provides consulting for projects related to the scientific and ethical conduct of research studies and drug development programs. She joined the Clinical Research Ethics Collaboration Collective, from which the authors of the reviewed book drew their case discussions, in 2023, when the book was already in the process of publication.

Manhattan, Kansas

Nashville, Tennessee

New Hyde Park, New York

Barriers to Clinical Trial Enrollment: Focus on Underrepresented Populations

Using Simulation to Teach Research

An Approach to a Benefit-Risk Framework

Jobs in the acrp career center.

• Clinical Research Technologist-Research | Nemours
• Research Coordinator - Research Operations | Denver Health
• Research Fellow | Nemours
• Intern-Research | Nemours

• Research Cases
• Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
• Focus Areas
• More Focus Areas
• Engineering Ethics
• Engineering Ethics Cases

An intern at a power electronics startup faces unkind comments from a fellow engineer. She suspects that her colleague is prejudice toward female engineers.

A chemical engineering professor discovers that a colleague has taken credit for his research.

A bioengineering researcher discovers an error in protocol and feels pressured not to report it to her supervisor.

A graduate student suspects her research adviser has earned tenure under false pretenses.

A medical researcher is asked to trim data before presenting it to the scientific advisory board.

Environmental engineers face pressure to come up with data that favors their employers.

A genetic engineer feels a responsibility to educate colleagues on the truth behind stem cell research.

An African-American electronics design lead wonders whether his colleague's contentious behavior is motivated by racism.

A medical company asks blood sample suppliers to sign an ethically questionable consent form.

A researcher of regenerative medicine meets a man who is eager sign up for potentially dangerous human testing.

• More pages:
• Academic Ethics
• Bioengineering
• Engineering Business
• Civil Engineering
• Computer/Software Engineering
• Electrical Engineering
• International
• Mechanical Engineering
• Science/Research Ethics

Case Summaries

2008 and older.

Email Updates

• Forms & Rules
• Policy & Administration
• News & Reference

• Research Cases
• Getting Started
• Court Basics
• Lawyers and Legal Help
• Preparing for Court
• Finding and Using the Law that Applies to Your Case
• Research Codes and Statutes
• Researching the Law FAQs
• Resolving Your Dispute Out of Court

"Case law" is all of the previous decisions made by judges. It is created by judges in their rulings when they write their decisions and give the reasoning behind them. These decisions are often called "opinions" and, in them, judges often cite precedents from other cases and statutes that influenced their decisions. These opinions form the principles that a court will normally consider when interpreting the law. This is called "legal precedent" and is central to legal analysis and rulings.

State trial courts (superior courts) do not publish opinions, so their decisions are not generally used as "legal precedent." The bulk of published opinions come from state and federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court.

A court gives legal precedent more or less weight depending on a number of factors:

• Most important is whether the precedent is "on point." Does it deal with a circumstance identical or very similar to the circumstance in your case?
• Second, when and where was the precedent decided? A recent decision by the same appellate court that oversees the trial court where your case is being heard will be given great weight.
• Next in importance is recent precedent by appellate courts for other areas (of the state or of the U.S.) whose law is the same as the law that your court follows.
• The least weight is given to precedent that comes from cases where the circumstances were different from your case, from older cases that have since been contradicted, or from cases in geographical areas or courts that have law that is considerably different from the law in the court your case is in.

Finding cases (also called "opinions")

When you researched practice guides, annotated codes and statutes, and self-help books, you probably saw and wrote down several references to cases that you want to look up because they are similar to your legal research issue and may help (or hurt) your own case. The references you have will look something like this:

Hutcherson v. Alexander, 264 Cal. App. 2d 126, 70 Cal. Rptr. 366 (1968). United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973).

These are called citations. Citations provide you with the name of the case, the volume of the book in which the case is found, the title of the book, the page number, and the year of the case.

The citations above are in the format prescribed by The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation . In the format prescribed by the California Style Manual, they would look like:

Hutcherson v. Alexander (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 126 [70 Cal.Rptr. 366]. United States v. Dionisio (1973) 410 U.S. 1.

Finding California court opinions online

Click to search published opinions by the California Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court .

You can also find past court cases or opinions in law libraries. To find cases in print at your local county law library, you can use a number of tools. If you know the name of the case, you can locate a table of cases that will list the cases alphabetically and give you the book, volume, and page where the case is located. If you have the citation, you can simply find the correct set of books, pull the volume, and turn to the page.

If you are looking for cases by topic, you can use a tool known as a “digest.” Digests are indexes to case law and also a way to find cases by topic, name, or subject. Digests are organized alphabetically by subject with numbers that classify the law into topics and subtopics.

Remember, cases with published opinions are Supreme Court or appellate cases, and these are the cases you can cite as authority in your case. And you can find them online or at your county law library. Superior or trial court cases cannot be cited as authority and are not published, so you cannot get them at your library. But if there is something about a superior court case that you think is helpful to you, you can find those decisions and court records in the superior court where the case was decided and sometimes online at that superior court’s website .

Finding federal court opinions online

The federal court system includes the Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. Courts of Appeals, U.S. District Courts, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, U.S. Court of International Trade, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and U.S. Bankruptcy Courts.

Click for U.S. Supreme Court opinions .

The U.S. Courts of Appeals consist of 11 circuit courts in addition to the District of Columbia Circuit and the Federal Circuit. California is in the Ninth Circuit along with Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Click for information about and opinions issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals . For information about the other circuits, you can go to your local public law library or use the Ask a Law Librarian  service.

California is divided into four U.S. District Court jurisdictions: the Northern District, Eastern District, Central District, and Southern District. Click for opinions and other information from the Central District ,  Eastern District , Northern District , and Southern District .  You can also access opinions in federal courts using the Villanova University School of Law federal case locator .

The U.S. Bankruptcy Courts in California are also divided into the Northern District, Eastern District, Central District, and Southern District. Each district has information online including opinions for the bankruptcy courts. Click on the district for which you want the information.

McCombs School of Business

• Español ( Spanish )

Videos Concepts Unwrapped View All 36 short illustrated videos explain behavioral ethics concepts and basic ethics principles. Concepts Unwrapped: Sports Edition View All 10 short videos introduce athletes to behavioral ethics concepts. Ethics Defined (Glossary) View All 58 animated videos - 1 to 2 minutes each - define key ethics terms and concepts. Ethics in Focus View All One-of-a-kind videos highlight the ethical aspects of current and historical subjects. Giving Voice To Values View All Eight short videos present the 7 principles of values-driven leadership from Gentile's Giving Voice to Values. In It To Win View All A documentary and six short videos reveal the behavioral ethics biases in super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's story. Scandals Illustrated View All 30 videos - one minute each - introduce newsworthy scandals with ethical insights and case studies. Video Series

Case Studies UT Star Icon

Case Studies

More than 70 cases pair ethics concepts with real world situations. From journalism, performing arts, and scientific research to sports, law, and business, these case studies explore current and historic ethical dilemmas, their motivating biases, and their consequences. Each case includes discussion questions, related videos, and a bibliography.

A Million Little Pieces

James Frey’s popular memoir stirred controversy and media attention after it was revealed to contain numerous exaggerations and fabrications.

Abramoff: Lobbying Congress

Super-lobbyist Abramoff was caught in a scheme to lobby against his own clients. Was a corrupt individual or a corrupt system – or both – to blame?

Apple Suppliers & Labor Practices

Is tech company Apple, Inc. ethically obligated to oversee the questionable working conditions of other companies further down their supply chain?

Approaching the Presidency: Roosevelt & Taft

Some presidents view their responsibilities in strictly legal terms, others according to duty. Roosevelt and Taft took two extreme approaches.

Appropriating “Hope”

Fairey’s portrait of Barack Obama raised debate over the extent to which an artist can use and modify another’s artistic work, yet still call it one’s own.

Arctic Offshore Drilling

Competing groups frame the debate over oil drilling off Alaska’s coast in varying ways depending on their environmental and economic interests.

Banning Burkas: Freedom or Discrimination?

The French law banning women from wearing burkas in public sparked debate about discrimination and freedom of religion.

Birthing Vaccine Skepticism

Wakefield published an article riddled with inaccuracies and conflicts of interest that created significant vaccine hesitancy regarding the MMR vaccine.

Blurred Lines of Copyright

Marvin Gaye’s Estate won a lawsuit against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for the hit song “Blurred Lines,” which had a similar feel to one of his songs.

Bullfighting: Art or Not?

Bullfighting has been a prominent cultural and artistic event for centuries, but in recent decades it has faced increasing criticism for animal rights’ abuse.

Buying Green: Consumer Behavior

Do purchasing green products, such as organic foods and electric cars, give consumers the moral license to indulge in unethical behavior?

Cadavers in Car Safety Research

Engineers at Heidelberg University insist that the use of human cadavers in car safety research is ethical because their research can save lives.

Cardinals’ Computer Hacking

St. Louis Cardinals scouting director Chris Correa hacked into the Houston Astros’ webmail system, leading to legal repercussions and a lifetime ban from MLB.

Cheating: Atlanta’s School Scandal

Teachers and administrators at Parks Middle School adjust struggling students’ test scores in an effort to save their school from closure.

Cheating: Sign-Stealing in MLB

The Houston Astros’ sign-stealing scheme rocked the baseball world, leading to a game-changing MLB investigation and fallout.

Cheating: UNC’s Academic Fraud

UNC’s academic fraud scandal uncovered an 18-year scheme of unchecked coursework and fraudulent classes that enabled student-athletes to play sports.

Cheney v. U.S. District Court

A controversial case focuses on Justice Scalia’s personal friendship with Vice President Cheney and the possible conflict of interest it poses to the case.

Christina Fallin: “Appropriate Culturation?”

After Fallin posted a picture of herself wearing a Plain’s headdress on social media, uproar emerged over cultural appropriation and Fallin’s intentions.

Climate Change & the Paris Deal

While climate change poses many abstract problems, the actions (or inactions) of today’s populations will have tangible effects on future generations.

Cover-Up on Campus

While the Baylor University football team was winning on the field, university officials failed to take action when allegations of sexual assault by student athletes emerged.

Covering Female Athletes

Sports Illustrated stirs controversy when their cover photo of an Olympic skier seems to focus more on her physical appearance than her athletic abilities.

Covering Yourself? Journalists and the Bowl Championship

Can news outlets covering the Bowl Championship Series fairly report sports news if their own polls were used to create the news?

Cyber Harassment

After a student defames a middle school teacher on social media, the teacher confronts the student in class and posts a video of the confrontation online.

Defending Freedom of Tweets?

Running back Rashard Mendenhall receives backlash from fans after criticizing the celebration of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden in a tweet.

Dennis Kozlowski: Living Large

Dennis Kozlowski was an effective leader for Tyco in his first few years as CEO, but eventually faced criminal charges over his use of company assets.

Digital Downloads

File-sharing program Napster sparked debate over the legal and ethical dimensions of downloading unauthorized copies of copyrighted music.

Dr. V’s Magical Putter

Journalist Caleb Hannan outed Dr. V as a trans woman, sparking debate over the ethics of Hannan’s reporting, as well its role in Dr. V’s suicide.

East Germany’s Doping Machine

From 1968 to the late 1980s, East Germany (GDR) doped some 9,000 athletes to gain success in international athletic competitions despite being aware of the unfortunate side effects.

Ebola & American Intervention

Did the dispatch of U.S. military units to Liberia to aid in humanitarian relief during the Ebola epidemic help or hinder the process?

Edward Snowden: Traitor or Hero?

Was Edward Snowden’s release of confidential government documents ethically justifiable?

Ethical Pitfalls in Action

Why do good people do bad things? Behavioral ethics is the science of moral decision-making, which explores why and how people make the ethical (and unethical) decisions that they do.

Ethical Use of Home DNA Testing

The rising popularity of at-home DNA testing kits raises questions about privacy and consumer rights.

Flying the Confederate Flag

A heated debate ensues over whether or not the Confederate flag should be removed from the South Carolina State House grounds.

Freedom of Speech on Campus

In the wake of racially motivated offenses, student protests sparked debate over the roles of free speech, deliberation, and tolerance on campus.

Freedom vs. Duty in Clinical Social Work

What should social workers do when their personal values come in conflict with the clients they are meant to serve?

Full Disclosure: Manipulating Donors

When an intern witnesses a donor making a large gift to a non-profit organization under misleading circumstances, she struggles with what to do.

Gaming the System: The VA Scandal

The Veterans Administration’s incentives were meant to spur more efficient and productive healthcare, but not all administrators complied as intended.

German Police Battalion 101

During the Holocaust, ordinary Germans became willing killers even though they could have opted out from murdering their Jewish neighbors.

Head Injuries & American Football

Many studies have linked traumatic brain injuries and related conditions to American football, creating controversy around the safety of the sport.

Head Injuries & the NFL

American football is a rough and dangerous game and its impact on the players’ brain health has sparked a hotly contested debate.

Healthcare Obligations: Personal vs. Institutional

A medical doctor must make a difficult decision when informing patients of the effectiveness of flu shots while upholding institutional recommendations.

High Stakes Testing

In the wake of the No Child Left Behind Act, parents, teachers, and school administrators take different positions on how to assess student achievement.

In-FUR-mercials: Advertising & Adoption

When the Lied Animal Shelter faces a spike in animal intake, an advertising agency uses its moral imagination to increase pet adoptions.

Krogh & the Watergate Scandal

Egil Krogh was a young lawyer working for the Nixon Administration whose ethics faded from view when asked to play a part in the Watergate break-in.

Limbaugh on Drug Addiction

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh argued that drug abuse was a choice, not a disease. He later became addicted to painkillers.

U.S. Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte’s “over-exaggeration” of an incident at the 2016 Rio Olympics led to very real consequences.

Meet Me at Starbucks

Two black men were arrested after an employee called the police on them, prompting Starbucks to implement “racial-bias” training across all its stores.

Myanmar Amber

Buying amber could potentially fund an ethnic civil war, but refraining allows collectors to acquire important specimens that could be used for research.

Negotiating Bankruptcy

Bankruptcy lawyer Gellene successfully represented a mining company during a major reorganization, but failed to disclose potential conflicts of interest.

Pao & Gender Bias

Ellen Pao stirred debate in the venture capital and tech industries when she filed a lawsuit against her employer on grounds of gender discrimination.

Pardoning Nixon

One month after Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency, Gerald Ford made the controversial decision to issue Nixon a full pardon.

Patient Autonomy & Informed Consent

Nursing staff and family members struggle with informed consent when taking care of a patient who has been deemed legally incompetent.

Prenatal Diagnosis & Parental Choice

Debate has emerged over the ethics of prenatal diagnosis and reproductive freedom in instances where testing has revealed genetic abnormalities.

Reporting on Robin Williams

After Robin Williams took his own life, news media covered the story in great detail, leading many to argue that such reporting violated the family’s privacy.

Responding to Child Migration

An influx of children migrants posed logistical and ethical dilemmas for U.S. authorities while intensifying ongoing debate about immigration.

Retracting Research: The Case of Chandok v. Klessig

A researcher makes the difficult decision to retract a published, peer-reviewed article after the original research results cannot be reproduced.

Sacking Social Media in College Sports

In the wake of questionable social media use by college athletes, the head coach at University of South Carolina bans his players from using Twitter.

Selling Enron

Following the deregulation of electricity markets in California, private energy company Enron profited greatly, but at a dire cost.

Snyder v. Phelps

Freedom of speech was put on trial in a case involving the Westboro Baptist Church and their protesting at the funeral of U.S. Marine Matthew Snyder.

Something Fishy at the Paralympics

Rampant cheating has plagued the Paralympics over the years, compromising the credibility and sportsmanship of Paralympian athletes.

Sports Blogs: The Wild West of Sports Journalism?

Deadspin pays an anonymous source for information related to NFL star Brett Favre, sparking debate over the ethics of “checkbook journalism.”

Stangl & the Holocaust

Franz Stangl was the most effective Nazi administrator in Poland, killing nearly one million Jews at Treblinka, but he claimed he was simply following orders.

Teaching Blackface: A Lesson on Stereotypes

A teacher was put on leave for showing a blackface video during a lesson on racial segregation, sparking discussion over how to teach about stereotypes.

The Astros’ Sign-Stealing Scandal

The Houston Astros rode a wave of success, culminating in a World Series win, but it all came crashing down when their sign-stealing scheme was revealed.

The Central Park Five

Despite the indisputable and overwhelming evidence of the innocence of the Central Park Five, some involved in the case refuse to believe it.

The CIA Leak

Legal and political fallout follows from the leak of classified information that led to the identification of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

The Collapse of Barings Bank

When faced with growing losses, investment banker Nick Leeson took big risks in an attempt to get out from under the losses. He lost.

The Costco Model

How can companies promote positive treatment of employees and benefit from leading with the best practices? Costco offers a model.

The FBI & Apple Security vs. Privacy

How can tech companies and government organizations strike a balance between maintaining national security and protecting user privacy?

The Miss Saigon Controversy

When a white actor was cast for the half-French, half-Vietnamese character in the Broadway production of Miss Saigon , debate ensued.

The Sandusky Scandal

Following the conviction of assistant coach Jerry Sandusky for sexual abuse, debate continues on how much university officials and head coach Joe Paterno knew of the crimes.

The Varsity Blues Scandal

A college admissions prep advisor told wealthy parents that while there were front doors into universities and back doors, he had created a side door that was worth exploring.

Providing radiation therapy to cancer patients, Therac-25 had malfunctions that resulted in 6 deaths. Who is accountable when technology causes harm?

Welfare Reform

The Welfare Reform Act changed how welfare operated, intensifying debate over the government’s role in supporting the poor through direct aid.

Wells Fargo and Moral Emotions

In a settlement with regulators, Wells Fargo Bank admitted that it had created as many as two million accounts for customers without their permission.

Stay Informed

Support our work.

• UB Directory
• Research and Economic Development >
• Research Expertise >
• Case Study - AI at USPS

Commercializing AI Tech | United States Postal Service

The United States Postal Service

Artificial intelligence technology enables efficiency Venu Govindaraju's work in handwriting recognition was at the center of the first handwritten address interpretation system used by the United States Postal Service (USPS). USPS issued a contract to researchers at the University at Buffalo to develop the handwriting recognition technology. One year after implementation it saved the USPS $ 90 million by automatically processing, and barcoding for precise delivery, more than 25 billion letters. The 2009 Computing Community Consortium dubbed the project as “one of the most successful applications of Machine Learning for developing a real-time engineered system.”

How The USPS Collaborated with UB

Handwriting Recognition Technology    |    Perfecting Multilingual OCR    |    Enabling Postal Automation

CHALLENGE & OPPORTUNITY

Revolutionizing handwriting understanding & automation

Venu Govindaraju and his team of more than 50 post-doc students and researchers pioneered the world's first self-governing system for handwriting understanding. Operating at 13 postal mail pieces per second, it interprets natural handwriting without strict rules or forms. Govindaraju's method employs advanced algorithms to determine destinations from 170 million possibilities using contextual information and generated lexicons. Overcoming challenges of natural cursive handwriting, they utilized an interactive A*-like algorithm and a stochastic recognizer to cluster and distinguish various writing styles.

SOLUTION & IMPACT

Expanding AI frontiers

Govindaraju's research impact extends far beyond revolutionizing the postal service industry, branching into Digital Libraries and Multilingual OCR. His methods facilitate early disease detection via healthcare form processing for the New York State (NYS) Department of Health, enhance patient safety through automated reading of medical prescriptions, and enable efficient access to historical documents, including Sanskrit and Arabic texts. Moreover, his techniques enable the retrieval of lecture video segments with significant handwritten and whiteboard content. Through innovations in word spotting, transcript mapping, text retrieval, and writer identification, Govindaraju has introduced powerful methods that advance technology across diverse applications.

RELATED NEWS

• Computing Handwritten Envelopes
• Postal Automation Impact Story

Venu Govindaraju, PhD

Harness AI to build something life-changing. UB can help.

Companies of all sizes work with UB to innovate, solve challenges and bring new products to market. We offer a broad range of services and support for any industry. Our connections make it easy for you to build or grow your business.

Our clients have brought us a wide range of challenging assignments, including some of the most important cases of the past quarter century.

United States of America et al v. JetBlue Airways Corporation and Spirit Airlines Inc.

Chan et al. v. arcsoft inc et al., in the matter of securus technologies inc. and inmate calling solutions llc, ciccio et al. v. smiledirectclub llc et al., de jaray et al. v. lattice semiconductor corp..

The Court enjoined the proposed merger, ruling that such a merger would “lessen competition in violation of the Clayton Act.

After a two-week trial, the jury awarded plaintiffs only a fraction of the damages calculated by the plaintiffs’ expert.

The parties abandoned their intent to merge after the DOJ opened its investigation into the acquisition.

Class certification was denied in this false advertising matter.

In this trial, the jury denied all the plaintiffs’ claims.

In re FibroGen Inc. Securities Litigation

Defendants win at the class certification stage in this 10b-5 securities matter.

Omni Logistics LLC v. Forward Air Corporation

After more than two months of litigation and moments before the commencement of trial, the parties moved forward with this acquisition.

FTC v. IQVIA Holdings Inc. et al.

The parties abandoned this merger shortly after the FTC’s preliminary injunction was granted.

Value Drug Company v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. Inc. et al.

Laurence Baker testified during a rare antitrust trial centering on the allegation that a brand manufacturer conspired with three generics to allocate the market for gout medication colchicine.

Pro Bono: Analysis of Jail Stays for Non-Violent Offenders

Cornerstone Research is providing pro bono support for Appleseed’s economic analysis of short-term jail stays for non-felony, non-violent charges.

Pro Bono: Impact of Gun Prevalence on Democracy Participation

Cornerstone Research is working with Everytown for Gun Safety to research how the prevalence of guns affects participation in democracy in the U.S.

In re Novartis and Par Antitrust Litigation

Novartis reached settlements with plaintiffs in this reverse payment matter.

How can we help you?

If you are looking for additional case experience examples, contact us.

Apply for Analyst Position

For undergraduates and graduate students or degree holders: We are excited to learn more about you. Please indicate below if you are applying to a U.S. or a UK role. Please note that U.S.-based students will not be considered for UK job openings.

Apply for Associate Position

For M.B.A. and Ph.D. students or degree holders: We are excited to learn more about you. Please indicate below if you are applying to a U.S. or a UK role.

Apply for Corporate/Administrative Position

Cornerstone Research offers a variety of exciting corporate and administrative roles across our nine offices. View our open positions in the United States (U.S.) or the United Kingdom ( UK ) by selecting the applicable country below. We look forward to learning more about you!

Privacy Overview

Already have an account with eFileGA? Sign In .

Reset Password

Research team led by Case Western Reserve awarded $2.75M from Department of Defense to advance clot-stabilizing nanotechnology

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has awarded a team of researchers led by Case Western Reserve University a four-year, $2.75 million grant to explore new technology to generate and stabilize a protein called fibrin that is essential to maintain protective blood clots in an injured body.

“The technology is envisioned to become a potential bleeding-control treatment for severe traumatic injuries in civilian emergencies and military battlefields,” said Anirban Sen Gupta , the Wallace R. Persons Endowed Professor of Engineering and professor of biomedical engineering at Case Western Reserve’s Case School of Engineering.

Sen Gupta is leading the project in collaboration with Ashley Brown , associate professor in the joint department of biomedical engineering at North Carolina State University (NCSU) and University of North Carolina (UNC), and Matthew Neal , professor of surgery and co-director of Pittsburgh Trauma and Transfusion Medicine Research Center at the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt).

A natural blood clot involves two major components: a cellular component called platelets and a molecular protein component called fibrin, formed from the blood protein fibrinogen. As Sen Gupta explains it more simply, if a blood clot is equated with stopping a flood, platelets are the sandbags and fibrin is the netting securing the sandbags.

But on the battlefield, for instance, a solider suffering a traumatic injury can bleed severely and rapidly, which can deplete the components required to make fibrin to clot properly.

Traumatic bleeding also leads to various dysfunctions and deficiencies in the body’s natural ability to keep the clot stable long enough to stop the bleeding and then allow the clot to break down naturally during healing.

Working to address that, the Sen Gupta lab at Case Western Reserve has developed a technology that can mimic the platelet’s ability to facilitate the generation of fibrin.

Simultaneously, the Brown lab at UNC/NCSU has developed a technology that mimics the biomechanical property of platelets to bind to fibrin and stabilize the clot by changing shape.

The new DoD grant will allow the researchers to integrate these capabilities into a single injectable nanotechnology for the combined effect of fibrin formation and stabilization. Studies at CWRU and UNC/NCSU will help evaluate and optimize the integrated technology. It will then be tested in a traumatic injury model at Pitt to establish its ability to stop hemorrhage and improve survival.

“We believe integrating these two systems into a single intravenous formulation will mimic the clot formation and stabilization aspects of platelets to treat traumatic injuries,” Sen Gupta said.

For a person severely injured in a civilian or battlefield setting without rapid access to a hospital, death from uncontrolled bleeding can happen within a few hours. In such scenarios, blood product transfusion is the gold standard, but blood products may not be timely and sufficiently available. This is where bleeding mitigation technologies are critically needed.

“Saving lives is the bottom line,” Sen Gupta said. “Providing the treatment as early as possible can save lives.”

For more information, contact Bill Lubinger at [email protected] .

Already have an account with eFileTexas? Sign In .

Reset Password