@article {1134,
	title = {Editorial: Inclusive Innovation in Developed Countries (February 2018)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {02/2018},
	pages = {3-6},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {biotechnology, convergent innovation, food security, inclusive growth, inclusive innovation, maker spaces, Open innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1134},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1134},
	author = {Chris McPhee and R. Sandra Schillo and Louise Earl and Jeff Kinder}
}
@article {1089,
	title = {Inclusive Innovation in Developed Countries: The Who, What, Why, and How},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {07/2017},
	pages = {34-46},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Although widely appreciated as an important driver of economic growth, innovation has also been established as a contributor to increasing economic and social inequalities. Such negative consequences are particularly obvious in the context of developing countries and extreme poverty, where innovation{\textquoteright}s contributions to inequalities are considered an issue of social and economic exclusion. In response, the concept of inclusive innovation has been developed to provide frameworks and action guidelines to measure and reduce the inequality-increasing effects of innovation. In developing countries, attention has only recently turned to the role of innovation in increasing inequalities, for example in the context of the degradation of employment in the transition from production to service industries. Although the focus of this early work is primarily on economic growth, innovation in developed countries also contributes to social exclusion, both of groups traditionally subject to social exclusion and new groups marginalized through arising innovations. This article summarizes the origins of the concept of inclusive innovation and proposes a four-dimensional framework for inclusive innovation in developed countries. Specifically, innovation needs to be inclusive in terms of people, activities, outcomes, and governance: i) individuals and groups participating in the innovation process at all levels; ii) the types of innovation activities considered; iii) the consideration of all positive and negative outcomes of innovation (including economic, social, and environmental); and iv) the governance of innovation systems. This framework is intended to guide policy development for inclusive innovation, as well as to encourage academics to investigate all dimensions of inclusive innovation in developed countries.},
	keywords = {developed countries, framework, inclusive innovation, inequality, social exclusion},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1089},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1089},
	author = {R. Sandra Schillo and Ryan M. Robinson}
}
@article {810,
	title = {Commercialization and Public Good: Conflict, Complement, or Critical Component?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2014},
	month = {07/2014},
	pages = {27-35},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The controversy regarding the role of science in society {\textendash} and how science can best achieve its role {\textendash} may well date as far back as the beginnings of science itself. The specific arguments and the possible mechanisms for science to impact society, however, have changed over time. This article picks up the conversation with regards to the specific role of publicly funded science, presuming, similar to Brecht in this article{\textquoteright}s opening quotation, that publicly funded science has the goal of making positive contributions to society. 

To achieve this goal, today{\textquoteright}s scientists and research managers face a myriad options of publication venues, protection mechanism, and collaborations with external partners including licensing and other options for commercialization. Oftentimes, the goal of achieving positive contributions to society is perceived as being in fundamental conflict with the restrictions many commercialization arrangements place on the use of knowledge. This article argues that, although commercialization may at times conflict with the goal of achieving positive contributions to society, it can also be complementary to pursuits towards societal contributions, or even a critical component in achieving the desired positive contributions to society. More specifically, it suggests that the use of the term {\textquotedblleft}science for the public good{\textquotedblright} as description of the goal to achieve positive societal contributions might create confusion with the economic term {\textquotedblleft}public good{\textquotedblright}. Thus, it seeks to reframe the discussion of how science can contribute to society in an era of increased openness and interaction. },
	keywords = {commercialization, intellectual property, public good, publicly funded science, science in society, societal benefits, technology transfer, university research},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/810},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/810},
	author = {R. Sandra Schillo}
}
@article {497,
	title = {Entrepreneurial Orientation and Company Performance: Can the Academic Literature Guide Managers?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {1},
	year = {2011},
	month = {11/2011},
	pages = {20-25},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article comments on the management implications of the various approaches to measuring entrepreneurial orientation (EO), and it discusses the implications of a range of empirical findings for management decisions. On the whole, the argument is that academic research needs to increase its understanding of the differences in empirical results between different studies. To date, the research mostly spells a small number of useful warnings, for example that the positive impact of EO may level off or turn negative beyond a certain point and that it may not have the anticipated positive effect in all circumstances. However, the academic research has yet to identify these circumstances to a level of specificity that could provide useful guidance to managers. },
	keywords = {entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/497},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/497},
	author = {R. Sandra Schillo}
}
