Co-creation and open innovation: Systematic literature review

Ramírez-Montoya, María Soledad and García-Peñalvo, Franciso-José Co-creation and open innovation: Systematic literature review. Comunicar, 2018, vol. 26, n. 54, 09-18. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[img]
Preview
Text (In English)
c5401en.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.

Download (1MB) | Preview
[img]
Preview
Text (En español)
c5401es.pdf

Download (1MB) | Preview

English abstract

Open science, as a common good, opens possibilities for the development of nations, through innovations and collaborative constructions, which help to democratize knowledge. Advances in this area are still emerging, and the open science, cocreation of knowledge and open innovation triangle, is presented as an opportunity to generate an original contribution from research to open educational theory and practices. The study analyzed the articles that addressed this triangle, in order to identify the contexts and challenges that arise in open innovation and the cocreation of knowledge to promote open science. The method was a systematic literature review (SLR) of 168 articles published in open access format, from January 2014 to May 2017 in the Web of Science and Scopus databases. In the validation process, the York University criteria were used: inclusion and exclusion, relevance of the pertinent studies, evaluation of the quality / validity of included studies and description of data / basic studies. The findings showed that the mostwidely publicized contexts were in the United States and Brazil, in the business and academic sectors (closely followed by the social sector), and the challenges were open to innovation, opening and research. The research concludes that the context and practices of collaboration are substantial elements for innovation and open science.

Spanish abstract

La ciencia abierta, como bien común, abre posibilidades para el desarrollo de las naciones a través de innovaciones y construcciones colaborativas que ayudan a democratizar el conocimiento. Los avances en la materia aún son incipientes y el triángulo ciencia abierta, cocreación del conocimiento e innovación abierta se presenta como una oportunidad de generar un aporte original, desde la investigación, para la teoría y las prácticas educativas abiertas. En el estudio se analizaron los artículos que abordan este triángulo, con el fin de identificar los contextos y retos que se presentan en la innovación y en la cocreación de conocimiento para impulsar la ciencia abierta. El método fue una revisión sistemática de literatura (SLR) de 168 artículos publicados en acceso abierto, de enero 2014 a mayo 2017, en las bases de datos Web of Science y Scopus. La validación se dio con los criterios de la Universidad de York: inclusión y exclusión, pertinencia, evaluación de calidad / validez de los estudios y descripción de datos. Los hallazgos reflejan que los contextos de mayor publicación sobre el tema son los de Estados Unidos y Brasil, en los sectores empresariales y académicos (seguido de cerca por el sector social) y los retos se abren en las posibilidades de innovación, apertura e investigación. Se concluye que el contexto y las prácticas de colaboración son elementos sustanciales para la innovación y la ciencia abierta.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Open science, citizen science, knowledge, collaboration, openness, innovation, knowledge cocreation, validation, Ciencia abierta, ciencia ciudadana, conocimiento, colaboración, apertura, innovación, cocreación de conocimiento, validación
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BJ. Communication
G. Industry, profession and education.
G. Industry, profession and education. > GH. Education.
Depositing user: Alex Ruiz
Date deposited: 16 Jan 2018 11:55
Last modified: 16 Jan 2018 11:55
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/32168

References

"SEEK" links will first look for possible matches inside E-LIS and query Google Scholar if no results are found.

Aleksic, J., Alexa, A., Attwood, T.K., Hong, N.C., Dahlö, M., Davey, R., ... Lahti, L. (2015). An open science peer review oath. F1000Research, 2015, 3, 271. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.5686.2<br>Álvarez, E.G., & Sintas, J.L. (2012). Ciencia abierta, e-ciencia y nuevas tecnologías: Desafíos y antiguos problemas en la investigación cualitativa en las ciencias sociales. Intangible Capital, 8(3), 497-519. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.384<br>Arabito, S., & Pitrelli, N. (2015). Open Science training and education: challenges and difficulties on the researchers’ side and in public engagement. Journal of Science Communication, 14(04), C01_en. (https://goo.gl/MYUB8V).<br>Ayris, P. (2017). Brexit - and its potential impact for open access in the UK. Insights, 30(1), 4-10. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.336<br>Bauer, M.A., Berleant, D., Cornell, A.P., & Belford, R.E. (2015). WikiHyperGlossary (WHG): An information literacy technology for chemistry documents. Journal of Cheminformatics, 7(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321-015-0073-7<br>Betancourt, M.C., Celaya, R., & Ramírez-Montoya, M.S. (2014). Open educational practices and technology appropriation: The case of the regional open Latin American community for social and educational research. RUSC, 11(1), 4-17. https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v11i1.1794<br>Bond-Lamberty, B., Smith, A.P., & Bailey, V. (2016). Running an open experiment: Transparency and reproducibility in soil and ecosystem science. Environmental Research Letters, 11(8), 084004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084004<br>Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B.A., Budgen, D., Turner, M., & Khalil, M. (2007). Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(4), 571-583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2006.07.009<br>Bubela, T., Guebert, J., & Mishra, A. (2015). Use and misuse of material transfer agreements: Lessons in proportionality from research, repositories, and litigation. PLoS Biol, 13(2), e1002060. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002060<br>Buttliere, B.T. (2014). Using science and psychology to improve the dissemination and evaluation of scientific work. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 8, 82. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2014.00082<br>Carey, T., Davis, A., Ferreras, S., & Porter, D. (2015). Using open educational practices to support institutional strategic excellence in teaching, learning & scholarship. Open Praxis, 7(2), 161-171. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.7.2.201<br>Castillo-Molina, Y.Y. (2016). Propuesta de un modelo para gestionar la innovación abierta en los Núcleos de Innovación del Cauca-Colombia. Revista Gestión de las Personas y Tecnología, 9(25), 72-85. (https://goo.gl/S9WdCL).<br>Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (Ed.) (2009). Systematic Reviews. CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York, UK: CRD, University of York. (https://goo.gl/731Ehh).<br>Chalk, S.J. (2016). The open spectral database: An open platform for sharing and searching spectral data. Journal of Cheminformatics, 8(1), 55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321-016-0170-2<br>Dahlander, L., & Gann, D.M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699-709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.013<br>Das, S., Glatard, T., Rogers, C., Saigle, J., Paiva, S., MacIntyre, L., ... MacFarlane, D. (2016). Cyberinfrastructure for open science at the Montreal Neurological Institute. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 10, 53. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2016.00053<br>Franzoni, C., & Sauermann, H. (2014). Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects. Research Policy, 43(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.005<br>García-Aristegui, D., & Rendueles, C. (2014). Abierto, libre… y público. Los desafíos políticos de la ciencia abierta. Argumentos de Razón Técnica, 17, 45-64. (https://goo.gl/Xoh3a1).<br>García-Peñalvo, F.J., Conde, M.A., Johnson, M., & Alier, M. (2013). Knowledge co-creation process based on informal learning competences tagging and recognition. International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals, 4(4), 18-30. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijhcitp.2013100102<br>García-Peñalvo, F.J., García-de-Figuerola, C., & Merlo-Vega, J.A. (2010). Open knowledge: Challenges and facts. Online Information Review, 34(4), 520-539. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521011072963<br>Hackseq Organizing Committee (2017). Hackseq: Catalyzing collaboration between biological and computational scientists via hackathon. F1000Research, 6, 10. https://doi.org/12688/f1000research.10964.1<br>Higgins, J.P., & Green, S. (Eds.) (2006). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.6. The Cochrane collaboration. (https://goo.gl/6uU6tM). <br>Higham, D.J., Batty, M., Bettencourt, L.M., Greetham, D.V., & Grindrod, P. (2017). An overview of city analytics. Royal Society Open Science. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.161063<br>Hormia-Poutanen, K., & Forsström, P. (2016). Collaboration at international, national and institutional level – Vital in fostering open science. Liber Quarterly, 26(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10157<br>Hughes, S.F. (2017). A new model for identifying emerging technologies. Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business, 7(1), 79-86. (https://goo.gl/yKd3fA).<br>Huizingh, E.K. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation, 31(1), 2-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2010.10.002<br>Joly, Y., Dalpé, G., So, D., & Birko, S. (2015). Fair shares and sharing fairly: A survey of public views on open science, informed consent and participatory research in biobanking. PloS One, 10(7), e0129893. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129893<br>Jørgensen, P.S., Barraquand, F., Bonhomme, V., Curran, T.J., Cieraad, E., Ezard, T.G., … Zimmerman, N. (2015). Connecting people and ideas from around the world: Global innovation platforms for next-generation ecology and beyond. Ecosphere, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00198.1<br>Katsikis, N., Lang, A., & Debreczeny, C. (2016). Evaluation of open innovation in B2B from a company culture perspective. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 11(3), 94-100. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242016000300011<br>Kitchenham, B.A. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele University: Technical Report TR/SE-0401 and NICTA Technical Report 0400011T.1. (https://goo.gl/wQcMaS).<br>Krause, W., & Schutte, C.S. (2016). Developing design propositions for an open innovation approach for SMEs. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 27(3), 37-49. https://doi.org/10.7166/27-3-1625<br>Labastida-i-Juan, I. (2015). The time has come for managing and sharing research data in universities. Journal of Science Communication, 14(4). (https://goo.gl/y1qndm).<br>Lahti, L., Ilomäki, N., & Tolonen, M. (2015). A quantitative study of history in the English short-title catalogue (ESTC), 1470-1800. Liber Quarterly, 25(2), 87-116. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10112.<br>Lasthiotakis, H., Kretz, A., & Sá, C. (2015). Open science strategies in research policies: A comparative exploration of Canada, the US and the UK. Policy Futures in Education, 13(8), 968-989. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210315579983<br>Lee, S.H., Workman, J., & Jung, K. (2016). Perception of time, creative attitudes, and adoption of Innovations: A cross-cultural study from Chinese and US College Students. Sustainability, 8(11), 1193. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111193<br>Lenart-Gansiniec, R. (2016). Relational capital and open innovation - In search of interdepencies. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 64(6), 2007-2013. https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201664062007<br>Lhoste, E., & Barbier, M. (2016). FabLabs. L’institutionnalisation de Tiers-Lieux du ‘soft hacking’. Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances, 10(1), 43-69. https://doi.org/10.3917/rac.030.0043<br>Lichtenthaler, U. (2011). Open innovation: Past research, current debates, and future directions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 75-93. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2011.59198451<br>McCormick, M.M., Liu, X., Ibanez, L., & Jomier, J. (2014). ITK: Enabling reproducible research and open science. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 8, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2014.00013<br>Mulder, F. (2013). The LOGIC of national policies and strategies for open educational resources. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(2), 96-105. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i2.1536<br>Naqshbandi, M.M., Singh, S.K., & Ma, P. (2016). The link between organisational citizenship behaviours and open innovation: A case of Malaysian high-tech sector. IIMB Management Review, 28(4), 200-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2016.08.008<br>National Knowledge Commission. (2007). Report to the Nation 2007. New Delhi: Government of India. (https://goo.gl/WbkkAE).<br>OECD (Ed.) (2012). Connected minds: Technology and today’s learners. Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264111011-en<br>Ojasalo, J., & Tähtinen, L. (2016). Integrating open innovation platforms in public sector decision making: Empirical results from smart city research. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(12). (https://goo.gl/ottFqt).<br>Okret-Manville, C. (2016). Academic social networks and open access: French researchers at the crossroads. Liber Quarterly, 25(3), 118-135. http://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10131<br>Olalla, M. F., Sandulli, F.D., Menéndez, J.F., & Duarte, A.R. (2014). ¿Cómo afectan las características de la industria a la relación entre la capacidad de I+D y la adopción de innovación abierta de entrada? Economía Industrial, 391, 23-32. (https://goo.gl/73V968).<br>Oumlil, R., & Juiz, C. (2016). An Up-to-date Survey in barriers to open innovation. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 11(3), 137-152. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242016000300016<br>Pernet, C., & Poline, J.B. (2015). Improving functional magnetic resonance imaging reproducibility. GigaScience, 4(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13742-015-0055-8<br>Poehlman, W.L., Rynge, M., Branton, C., Balamurugan, D., & Feltus, F.A. (2016). OSG-GEM: Gene expression matrix construction using the open science Grid. Bioinformatics and Biology Insights, 10, 133-141. https://doi.org/10.4137/BBI.S38193<br>Ramírez-Montoya, M.S. (2015). Acceso abierto y su repercusión en la sociedad del conocimiento: Reflexiones de casos prácticos en Latinoamérica. Education in the Knowledge Society, 16(1), 103-118. https://doi.org/10.14201/eks2015161103118.<br>Randhawa, K., Wilden, R., & Hohberger, J. (2016). A bibliometric review of open innovation: Setting a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(6), 750-772. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12312<br>Rodríguez-Ferradas, M.I., & Alfaro-Tanco, J.A. (2016). Open innovation in automotive SMEs suppliers: An opportunity for new product development. Universia Business Review, 50, 142. https://doi.org/10.3232/UBR.2016.V13.N2.05<br>Schmidt, B., Orth, A., Franck, G., Kuchma, I., Knoth, P., & Carvalho, J. (2016). Stepping up open science training for European research. Publications, 4(2), 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications4020016<br>Schuurman, D., & Tõnurist, P. (2017). Innovation in the public sector: Exploring the characteristics and potential of living labs and innovation labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(1), 7-14. (https://goo.gl/pqVcQy).<br>Schuurman, D., De-Marez, L., & Ballon, P. (2016). The impact of living lab methodology on open innovation contributions and outcomes. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(1), 7-16. (https://goo.gl/DmwJRP).<br>Seguí-Mas, E., Signes-Pérez, E., Sarrión-Viñes, F., & Vidal, J.A. (2016). Bibliometric analysis of the international literature on open innovation and absorptive capacity. Intangible Capital, 12(1), 51-72. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.685<br>Shim, S.O., & Park, K. (2016). Technology for production scheduling of jobs for open innovation and sustainability with fixed processing property on parallel machines. Sustainability, 8(9), 904. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090904<br>Sloep, P., & Berlanga, A. (2011). Learning networks, networked learning. [Redes de aprendizaje, aprendizaje en Red]. Comunicar, 37(19), 55-63. https://doi.org/10.3916/C37-2011-02-05 <br>Tandon, R., Singh, W., Clover, D., & Hall, B. (2017). Knowledge democracy and excellence in engagement. IDS Bulletin, 47(6), 19-35. https://doi.org/10.19088/1968-2016.197<br>Tripathi, S.S. (2016). Open innovation in Indian organizations: Types of collaboration. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(5), 15-23. (https://goo.gl/yqXrbb).<br>Tukiainen, T., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2015). Cities as collaborative innovation platforms. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(10), 16-23. (https:// goo.gl/UrrtGB). <br>UNESCO (Ed.) (2004). Ética de la Ciencia y la Tecnología. Contacto, XXIX(3-4). (https://goo.gl/FGvb8S).<br>Užiene, L. (2015). Open innovation, knowledge flows and intellectual capital. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213, 1057-1062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.525<br>Wallin, M.W., & Von-Krogh, G. (2010). Organizing for open innovation. Organizational Dynamics, 39(2), 145-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2010.01.010<br>Yang, M., & Wang, J. (2016). Overflow mechanism and demonstration of knowledge flow on enterprise endogenous innovation by the three-dimensional space: Based on the open innovation perspective. International Journal of Security and Its Applications, 10(3), 321-332. https://doi.org/10.14257/ijsia.2016.10.3.28<br>Yoon, B., Shin, J., & Lee, S. (2016). Open innovation projects in SMEs as an engine for sustainable growth. Sustainability, 8(2), 146. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020146<br>Yun, J.J., Jeong, E., & Park, J. (2016). Network analysis of open innovation. Sustainability, 8(8), 729. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080729<br>Zander, F., & Kralisch, S. (2016). River basin information system: Open environmental data management for research and decision making. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 5(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi5070123<br>


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item