When I was a faculty member, case studies were one of my favorite tools in the classroom. They invited students to wrestle with real-world problems, practice decision-making and see how abstract ideas translated into concrete challenges. Case studies made learning active, collaborative and, in many cases, more enjoyable.

Years later, when I transitioned into directing professional development for graduate students, I found myself coming back to this same teaching tool. During my Accelerate to Industry (A2i) training, I saw how Rhonda Sutton at North Carolina State University had built case studies directly into her program. She used them to help students practice skills that industry employers care about most: teamwork, communication, problem-solving and the ability to apply disciplinary expertise in new contexts.

I left that training determined to create something similar for Clemson’s A2i program. But there was a catch: Our inaugural cohort included 39 graduate students from across the entire university, including engineers, life scientists, social scientists and humanities scholars. How do you create a case study that is both meaningful and authentic when participants are rooted in such different disciplines?

The Challenge of Disciplinary Breadth

In graduate education, we take pride in our depth. Students are trained to become experts, and case studies that are too general risk flattening that expertise or giving the impression of devaluing true expertise in a field. A generic problem might allow for some creativity, but it also puts students in situations too far removed from reality. A biochemist might end up working through a case about supply chain logistics, or a historian might be asked to solve a lab-management challenge. While there can be value in stretching beyond one’s comfort zone, it felt counterproductive to remove the disciplinary anchor that defines graduate study.

Building the Case Study with Industry Partners

The breakthrough came when I started collaborating with industry partners. Working with Joey Thames and Stefan Hanis from Poly-Med, a biomedical company, I asked a simple question: What kinds of challenges arise in real industry work that could be useful for graduate students to practice solving?

Rather than designing the case study in isolation, we co-created it with Poly-Med’s input. This partnership ensured that the scenario was rooted in authentic business problems while leaving space for students to draw on their own disciplinary strengths.

The final case study challenged students to imagine they were tasked with building an ideal R&D team for Poly-Med. Their charge was deceptively simple:

1. Define key roles: Identify at least five essential roles.
2. Assess hiring priorities: What skills, backgrounds and transferable skills are most important?
3. Develop a hiring strategy: What hiring approach should Poly-Med use? Consider:
   • Internal promotions versus external hires
   • Methods for assessing candidates’ ability to work in an interdisciplinary setting
   • Ways to reach qualified candidates
4. Team development plan: Outline strategies for ensuring collaboration and professional growth in the first six months.
5. Deliverable: Your team will present a five- to 10-minute proposal summarizing your approach.

Students were then asked to present their proposals directly to Poly-Med’s representatives, who responded in real time. Importantly, Joey and Stefan were asked to challenge the students, especially around issues of feasibility and profit generation.

The Case Study in Action

When the cohort took on this case study, the energy level in the room was higher than I expected. Teams immediately began debating what expertise was essential, how to balance cost with innovation, and where the ideal met the real.

Some groups leaned heavily on disciplinary expertise, making compelling arguments for why engineers or scientists should dominate the team’s structure. Others emphasized business and project-management skills, noting that without leadership and financial acumen, even the most technically brilliant team could flounder.

The exercise forced students to articulate not only the value of their own backgrounds but also the limits of working in isolation. A chemist might recognize the importance of a regulatory specialist; an engineer might see the need for a project manager; a business student might appreciate the technical depth required to bring a medical device to market.

And because their audience was not me, but actual industry leaders, the stakes felt real. Students had to persuade professionals who live these challenges every day.

Lessons Learned

Our first attempt was far from perfect. Some students wanted even more detail about Poly-Med’s existing projects; others wished they had more time to research comparable companies. We also failed to allow enough time for the case study as we could have, largely because we did not expect the students to dig into the material as much as they did. But overwhelmingly, participants reported that this was the most valuable activity of our immersion experience.

The industry partners also reported feeling energized. They appreciated the creativity students brought, but they also valued the opportunity to push back, to say, “That sounds great in theory, but here’s why it wouldn’t work in practice.” That back-and-forth, grounded in authentic challenges, was precisely the bridge we wanted to build between graduate education and industry.

We plan to refine and repeat this case study in future cohorts, incorporating feedback and tailoring the challenge to evolving industry needs.

A Replicable Process for Universities

• Start with an industry partner. Ground the case study in real challenges companies face. Workforce development, for example, is both urgent and open to fresh ideas.
• Frame the challenge broadly but realistically. Keep the problem flexible enough for multiple disciplines but specific enough to feel authentic. Our “build a team” exercise gave entry points for technical, managerial and financial perspectives.
• Make the stakes real. Presenting to industry leaders, not just peers or faculty, raised the urgency. Professional feedback turned the exercise into more than theory.
• Foster disciplinary translation. Design the case so students must value contributions outside their own fields, without pretending to be experts in them. This makes interdisciplinary dialogue essential.
• Iterate and refine. Like teaching, the first version won’t be perfect. Use student and partner feedback to strengthen it over time.

Looking Ahead

What I learned through this process is that the key is collaboration: between faculty and industry, between disciplines, and between students and professionals. When designed thoughtfully, case studies don’t dilute disciplinary expertise, they showcase it in ways that industry values most.

Our first attempt with Poly-Med proved that even a diverse group of 39 graduate students can find common ground in solving complex, real-world problems. And in the process, they discover not only what makes them experts, but also what makes them better collaborators.