Case study Analysis of the research.

The Article analyzes the dependence of the adoption of open innovation practices
from theownership structure of the enterprises. The research carried out in Russian
Federation. The main points are set in the Open Innovation framework and
Hypothesis part of the Article. To be precise, these points are listed as the
Hypothesis statements, and they are the following:

Private enterprises have a higher rate of open innovation adoption than

state-owned firms
Foreign-owned enterprises have a higher rate of open innovation adoption
than domestic enterprises
New (de-novo) enterprises have the highest rate of open innovation adoption.

The problem of the paper laid upon the study that privatized or new enterprises
structures are more efficient than old enterprise structures. According to the
conducted analysis, one can say that in a fast changing and challenging business
environment, closed approaches to innovation are not so effective. The numerous
studies were held in different countries before, and now was held by the authors in
Russia.
According to the hypothesis and its few statements, I tend to think that the research
has used the deductive reasoning, because there is three statements, which lead to
one concrete conclusion that the ownership structures also differs in Russian market
and there is a great differences in innovation performances.
The model, which were used, is the Research on the basis of Earlier theory and
Hypothesis based study. In other words, there is a theory and hypothesis
statements, based on previous studies and the authors explain and analyze them
with the reference to Russian enterprises. The descriptive research design was used
with clear structure. The problem and hypothesis were clearly formed in the
beginning. After that, the authors gave the main concepts of the study (e.g. the
concepts of ownership structures, three fundamental factors of impact on open
innovation era, etc.).The Result and discussion section clearly supported by the
primary data analysis and evidences. In my opinion, the researchers used this type
of design, because all the statements which used in the beginning, needed concept
and theory descriptions, and at the end in order to support them they had necessity
to support the ideas with the finding data. Therefore, I think that the chosen design
is very appropriate for this research model and design.
The Article includes the secondary data evidences, which conducted in the end of
2009 to beginning 2010. The secondary data consists of table, statistics, analysis of
the previous studies and other information. The qualitative and quantitative
methods were used. By the qualitative method the users explained the hypothesis
statements and by the quantitative method they supported the problem statement
and came to the final conclusion. I think, that such kind of method is applicable in
the research paper, because as I mentioned before, when the author gives the
hypothesis, there is a strong need for concrete evidences. In our case these
evidences we supported by the surveys and tables with quantitative data.
To sum up, I think that generally the research paper is well structured and the
methods chosen in a right way. Generally, I like the Article, because the problem
and statements, methodology, research data, theoretical background are clearly
determined. The conclusion part corresponds to the hypothesis statements. While

reading the article, I did not have any problems with understanding the research
problems, its descriptions and objects. The only thing, which I wish to add, is a
primary data.