# Open Data for Open Innovation: An Analysis of Literature Characteristics
## 3 Results
### Methodological Characteristics of the Documents  
To perform a more in-depth literature review, this section presents an analysis of the methodological characteristics of the documents studied as the type of study, the analytical techniques, the source of information and the geographical area. Analysing the type of documents indicates that 65.5% (36) are empirical and approximately 34.5% (19) are theoretical. Several aspects of the empirical documents have been analysed, such as the type of study (Table 6), analytical techniques used (Table 7), and sources of information (Table 8). Tables 6 and 7 show that 61% (22) of the empirical documents are exclusively qualitative studies using the analytical technique of case study. On the other hand, six documents (approximately 17%) are exclusively quantitative, using analytical techniques such as the varimax rotation method, correlation coefficients, Cronbach's alpha coefficient, regression analysis, structural equation modelling, and descriptive statistics. Furthermore, seven documents (approximately 19.4%) use a combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques. All are case studies with various types of descriptive statistics, except for one by Smith & Sandberg, 2018 [69], that combines a case study with a cross-tabulation matrix. If we analyse all the studies that are exclusively quantitative or that are combined with a qualitative study, 13 documents are found (36% of the empirical documents). Eight of these are cross-sectional studies for the same period, and five are longitudinal studies. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Type of Study** & **Authors, Year** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Quantitative} & [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2016 [12]; [PERSON], [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2016 [54]; \\  & [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2016 [73]; [PERSON], \\  & [PERSON], [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2017 [39]; [PERSON], \\  & [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] \& [PERSON], \\  & 2017 [53]; [PERSON], [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2017 [75] \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Qualitative} & [PERSON], [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2012 [28]; [PERSON], [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2012 [79]; [PERSON], 2013 [33]; [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2014 [36]; [PERSON], \\  & 2014 [45]; [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2015 [32]; \\ \cline{1-1}  & [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2015 [43]; [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2015 [48]; [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2015 [50]; [PERSON], 2015 [55]; [PERSON] \& \\ \cline{1-1}  & [PERSON], 2015 [64]; [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2015 [68]; \\ \cline{1-1}  & [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2015 [27]; [PERSON], [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2016 [52]; [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2016 [60]; [PERSON], 2016 [63]; [PERSON], \\ \cline{1-1}  & [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2017 [40]; [PERSON], \\ \cline{1-1}  & 2017 [10]; [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2017 [59]; [PERSON], \\ \cline{1-1}  & [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2018 [46]; [PERSON], 2018 [67]; [PERSON], [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2018 [74] \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Quantitative and qualitative} & [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2014 [44]; \\ \cline{1-1}  & [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] \& [PERSON], \\ \cline{1-1}  & 2014 [49]; [PERSON], [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2015 [71]; [PERSON], [PERSON], \\ \cline{1-1}  & [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2016 [58]; [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2017 [34]; \\ \cline{1-1}  & [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2017 [38]; [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2018 [69] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Type of study/author/s, year. The most prevalent analytical technique used is the case study, identified in 28 documents (77.8% of the empirical studies), followed by descriptive statistics found in nine documents (25% of the empirical studies) (Table 6). Table 8 presents the information sources used in the empirical studies. Most (28, or 77.8%) of the documents analysed have a secondary source; 16 documents (44.4%) have only one source; and 8 documents (22.2%) have three or more sources.