@article {1456,
	title = {Charting a Course of Action: An Insider-Outsider Approach},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {11},
	year = {2021},
	month = {10/2021},
	pages = {48-66},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {48},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {We explore an alternative approach to action research that can be implemented throughout the lifespan of a science and technology research programme. We do this by examining the emergence and development of a participant-observer research approach where a researcher is also part of the same community of practice as those being observed in the technology and innovation management context. Our motivation stems from the need to understand innovation processes and management over a long period. Typically, consultants are employed for a given period to carry out action research. We present a case where social scientists, as opposed to action research consultants, carried out action research after a history of relationship building and becoming embedded within a longitudinal science and technology research programme. This allowed the social science researchers to build trust and rigor with those being observed before engaging an action research approach. We present our case as a narrative of experiences, events and turning points, reporting on what was observed and experienced by these social scientists. Our study extends current knowledge by mapping the research journey toward action research through three phases: navigation, iteration, and reflection phases. We argue that richer insights are generated when participant-observers engage early, and that their insights lead to action research that is more informed.},
	keywords = {action research, Ethnography, Innovation management, Insider-Outsider, narrative, Participant-Observer, Reflexivity, Sense-Making},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1456},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1456},
	author = {Paul Woodfield and Katharina Ruckstuhl and Rafaela C.C. Rabello}
}
@article {1231,
	title = {Bridging Participatory Policy Trends and Research Traditions through Social Innovation},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {04/2019},
	pages = {27-36},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This study explores whether social innovation may serve as a bridge between participatory policy trends and research traditions when striving for improved societal relevance and impact of research and innovation (R\&I). Despite their shared aim of relevance and impact through civic involvement, European R\&I policies and participatory action research approaches seldom refer to each other or harness each other{\textquoteright}s resources. The study advances the knowledge regarding how the participatory elements in the policies and research approaches relate through a participatory case study of a joint R\&I process to develop a model for social innovation support in Sweden. The case study helps distinguish potential synergies between various degrees of involvement advocated in the policies and research approaches, as well as between the reliance on trending policy concepts vs. scientific notions of validity. Social innovation is perceived as a potential bridge between these elements, as it draws upon participatory academic traditions, while simultaneously tapping into current policy trends of co-creation, in the development of new approaches and solutions to societal challenges. },
	keywords = {action research, co-creation, innovation, participatory research, social innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1231},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1231},
	author = {Malin Lindberg and Daniel Hallencreutz and Anna Tengqvist}
}
@article {1234,
	title = {Choosing an Outlet for Action Research: Publication Patterns in Innovation Journals},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {04/2019},
	pages = {66-77},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {With the aim to help innovation researchers choose outlets for articles based on participatory and action research methods, this article describes and discusses publication patterns of action research. A bibliographic study of 33 innovation journals ranked 4, 3, 2, and 1 in the 2018 Academic Journal Guide is complemented by a case study of this journal, the Technology Innovation Management Review, as an example of an established open access journal in the field with a wider scope and target group. From these two studies, we learn that the overall trend is towards more publications of action research articles in a diversity of outlets. Indirectly, the study supports the general view that articles striving towards adding practical relevance to research are becoming more frequent. There is no support for the notion that more renowned and higher-ranked journals would be more hesitant to accept articles with action research methods. The study also notes that there are interesting outlets beside those highly ranked and indexed in more conventional ways. The conclusion reached is that we lack a clear answer to the question of what are the best outlets for those of us who are interested in both innovation and action research. Instead, the study invites us to reflect upon what kind of impact we want to have and then act accordingly. },
	keywords = {action research, bibliography, case study, innovation, journals, participative, participatory action research},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1234},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1234},
	author = {Magnus Hoppe}
}
@article {1233,
	title = {A Discipline-Spanning Overview of Action Research and Its Implications for Technology and Innovation Management},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {04/2019},
	pages = {48-65},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The iterative and learning character of action research is particularly beneficial for exploring complex socio-technical problems in technology and innovation management (TIM). In this respect, action research allows both rigorous and relevant research due to parallel solving of real-world problems, capability building, and gaining scientific insights. However, the use of action research within TIM research is surprisingly limited. Action research also is not a homogeneous research methodology since each research discipline, such as education and organizational science, has its own action research streams, which are often only loosely linked. A systematic overview of those action research traditions and specific best practices is still missing, which complicates a systematic transfer and use of action research in TIM. This article addresses this essential gap by building a cross-disciplinary overview of action research streams based on a bibliometric analysis using Scopus. The analysis includes relevant disciplines with action research traditions, their development over time, and the most influential journals, authors, institutions, and countries. Along with this discipline-spanning analysis, the article investigates particular TIM benefits and challenges of action research. The two key contributions of this article are: 1) a discipline-spanning overview of action research and its evolution and 2) an analysis of its implications for TIM research. These contributions build the basis for strengthening the use of action research in TIM. In the medium-term, action research has the capacity to link academia and industry more closely and, in doing so, assists important endeavours of translating more of our research outcomes into practice.},
	keywords = {action research, bibliometrics, discipline-spanning analysis, literature review, technology and innovation management},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1233},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1233},
	author = {Matthias Guertler and Nathalie Sick and Anton Kriz}
}
@article {1228,
	title = {Editorial: Action Research (April 2019)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {04/2019},
	pages = {3-6},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {action research, innovation, participative, participatory research},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1228},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1228},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Magnus Hoppe and Erik Lindhult}
}
@article {1236,
	title = {Editorial: Action Research (May 2019)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {05/2019},
	pages = {3-5},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {action research, innovation, participative, participatory research},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1236},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1236},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Magnus Hoppe and Erik Lindhult}
}
@article {1244,
	title = {Editorial: Insights (June 2019)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {06/2019},
	pages = {3-3},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {action research, development projects, digitization, innovation, management innovation, women entrepreneurs, women managers},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1244},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1244},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@article {1241,
	title = {Embedded Master{\textquoteright}s Students Conduct Highly Relevant Research Using Industry as Their Laboratory},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {05/2019},
	pages = {54-73},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article analyzes participatory action research conducted by Systems Engineering master{\textquoteright}s students embedded fifty percent in industrial companies for three years. The resulting papers authored by these students identify challenges and effective practices suitable for knowledge transfer between industry and academia. The analysis covers 181 completed master{\textquoteright}s projects, with a detailed analysis of 40 papers that have been published in international conferences and journals. The publication rate of about 23\% shows that these students contribute actively to the body of Systems Engineering knowledge. This study analyzes master{\textquoteright}s projects at three levels {\textendash} industrial problem and drivers; Systems Engineering methods; and research method feasibility {\textendash} and provides valuable lessons learned by applying the industry-as-laboratory approach. Embedding students in industry has resulted in publications that do not suffer from the main challenges of participatory research such as delays, repeatability, and only action and not research. These insights are valuable both for industry and for academia in future work to enhance innovations.},
	keywords = {action research, energy, experimental learning, industrial knowledge, industry as laboratory, innovations, knowledge transfer, lessons learned, master project, master{\textquoteright}s students, participatory research, situated learning, systems engineering, systems of systems},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1241},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1241},
	author = {Kristin Falk and Gerrit Muller}
}
@article {1239,
	title = {How to Develop an Impactful Action Research Program: Insights and Lessons from a Case Study},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {05/2019},
	pages = {34-43},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Action research holds great potential for helping bridge the gap between research and practice. By working closely together, researchers and practitioners can develop tangible customized solutions based on research findings. It becomes possible to go beyond generic best practices that might need adaptation for successful implementation and use, or that may not apply at all in some contexts. In this article, the mechanisms through which action research can create the desired change and impact in both industry and academia are illustrated by describing the relevance and contribution of the main steps of a longitudinal action research program in a Canadian manufacturing company. The authors share four guiding principles and six success factors that were revealed intuitively in the course of this multi-year research program. Their hope is to contribute to a better understanding of how it is possible to develop an adaptive action research methodology to increase the potential for research relevance and organizational change. },
	keywords = {action research, guiding principles, Innovation management, research practice gap, success factors},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1239},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1239},
	author = {Victoria Lakiza and Isabelle Deschamps}
}
@article {1232,
	title = {Increasing the Impact of Industry{\textendash}Academia Collaboration through Co-Production},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {04/2019},
	pages = {37-47},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Increased competition and globalization motivate us to join forces to enhance the impact of the research conducted. Collaboration between organizations with different views can, however, be difficult to manage and needs awareness and skills to meet different expectations. This article will consider both a mutual industrial and academic perspective into the development of action research and, in six research project cases, empirically explore how the impact can be enhanced by considering certain key factors in the research process. How the phases of problem formulation, methodology, and results are managed is critical for the success of a collaboration and, thereby, its impact. Counter-productive forces that could dilute the progress over time need to be considered given that combining practical relevance and scientific rigour comes with challenges.},
	keywords = {action research, co-production, collaboration, impact, industry{\textendash}academia collaboration, key factors, relevance, rigour},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1232},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1232},
	author = {Anna Sann{\"o} and Anna Ericson {\"O}berg and Erik Flores-Garcia and Mats Jackson}
}
@article {1229,
	title = {Navigating Boundaries in Additive Manufacturing through Action Research},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {04/2019},
	pages = {7-16},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Action research {\textendash} both as praxis but also from a critical orientation {\textendash} can elaborate modes of action, identifying the borders and margins that act as both the productive spaces for collaboration as well as the fuzzy areas that require reflection and clarification. In this exploratory case study, action research is used to follow an additive manufacturing project team in real time as it navigates fuzzy areas to integrate knowledge to produce commercializable science innovation in one of New Zealand{\textquoteright}s National Science Challenges (NSC): Science for Technological Innovation {\textendash} Kia Kotahi Mai: Te Ao Putaiao me Te Ao Hangarau (SfTI). Through action research as praxis and as critical orientation, we have identified key mechanisms in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research for commercialization, particularly in the context of New Zealand{\textquoteright}s indigenous M{\={a}}ori people. Our preliminary analysis indicates that an explicit understanding of the fuzzy spaces can help teams find creative and collaborative means to navigate the productive but challenging {\textquotedblleft}interstices of disciplines{\textquotedblright} (Mengis et al., 2018) to produce science innovation and discoveries and to galvanize relationships with industry and M{\={a}}ori participants. The findings also indicate that action research can promote structural, relational, and knowledge changes within teams, helping them solve complex problems in real time. },
	keywords = {action research, critical orientation, innovation, science, SfTI, transformative praxis},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1229},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1229},
	author = {Katharina Ruckstuhl and Rafaela C. C. Rabello and Sally Davenport}
}
@article {1242,
	title = {Q\&A. What Can Action Research Learn from Business Environment Analysis?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {05/2019},
	pages = {74-80},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {action research, business environment analysis, consultancy, consultants, organizations},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1242},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1242},
	author = {Bengt Wahlstr{\"o}m}
}
@article {1237,
	title = {Scientific Excellence in Participatory and Action Research: Part I. Rethinking Research Quality},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {05/2019},
	pages = {6-21},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {A core impetus of participatory and action research is making science relevant and useful for solving pressing problems and improving social conditions, and enabling stakeholders to participate in research and development processes. There are claims in the community of participatory and action research of the potential for heightened scientific excellence, but at the same time, there are critiques in the mainstream community that more engaged, even activist, stances threaten scientific norms or that position these type of research approaches outside the field of science, for example, as issues of application. In the search of clarification of the scientific identity and the specific qualities of participatory and action research, scholars have been moving away from and sometimes have rejected traditional conceptions of quality. This leads to confusion about how to relate to the discourse on research quality and scientific excellence in mainstream science. Integration in this discourse is important in order to attain academic legitimation in prevailing institutions of science, for example, in applications for funding, in seeking to publish research, and in the acceptance of dissertations based on participatory and action research. The purpose of this article is to contribute to this integration by reconstructing the way traditional quality concepts {\textendash} validity, reliability, and objectivity {\textendash} can be fruitfully used in expanded frameworks for quality where scientific excellence of participatory and action approaches are visible and where mainstream science approaches also can be harboured. In this conceptual article, reconstruction of understanding of scientific inquiry is first made based on a praxis-oriented epistemology inspired by pragmatism. Through rethinking truth as trustworthiness, new proposals for the conceptualization and frames for research quality and scientific excellence are introduced. Second, a framework for understanding purpose in science and its basis in validity, reliability, and the core characteristics of participatory and action research is developed. Third, the turn to action, practice, and participation enables plural ways of knowing and ways that knowledge claims can be validated and made trustworthy. The article concludes that participatory and action research offers a broader landscape of purpose and validation than more traditional approaches to science. In a subsequent article, reliability and objectivity, and their use in participatory and action research, will be clarified.},
	keywords = {action research, participatory research, quality},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1237},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1237},
	author = {Erik Lindhult}
}
@article {1238,
	title = {Scientific Excellence in Participatory and Action Research: Part II. Rethinking Objectivity and Reliability},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {05/2019},
	pages = {22-33},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The purpose of this article is to deal with the following question: Can the concepts of reliability and objectivity be reconceptualized and reappropriated to enable understanding of scientific excellence in participatory and action research? The article shows that it is fruitful to consider the {\textquotedblleft}subjective{\textquotedblright} and active role of researchers as vital in enabling scientific objectivity and reliability. As an expansion from a replication logic, reliability can be conceptualized as adaptive, goal-seeking, dynamically regulated processes enabled by effective organization of interactive and participatory learning processes where all participants can contribute to learning and correction in inquiry. Instead of erasing subjectivity, objectivity can be enabled by critical subjectivity, intersubjectivity, practical wisdom, impartial norms of inquiry, and open democratic dialogue. Reliability and objectivity in this understanding can be enabled by participatory and action research through skilful performance of research practices such as reflective conversations between parties, dialogue conferences, experimentation, and experiential learning as part of action-research cycles, etc., which are common in participatory and action research initiatives and projects. By rethinking validity, reliability, and objectivity, recognizing the substantially more active and participatory stances enables scientific excellence, it can expand the repertoire of strategies for promoting research quality, and it helps to mainstream this type of approach in the scientific community.},
	keywords = {action research, objectivity, participatory research, reliability},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1238},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1238},
	author = {Erik Lindhult}
}
@article {1248,
	title = {The Status and Future of Action Research: An Interview with Professor David Coghlan},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {06/2019},
	pages = {42-49},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {action research, David Coghlan, insider action research, interiority, interview, reflection},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1248},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1248},
	author = {David Coghlan and Erik Lindhult}
}
@article {1230,
	title = {Using Action Research to Organize Technology Transfer in Complex Innovation Contexts},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {04/2019},
	pages = {17-26},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Technology transfer projects increasingly consist of multiple, diverse organizations, with each pursuing their own agenda as well as that of the overarching programme. In this article, we adopt a participatory action research methodology in order to explain and improve the coordination of the autonomous innovation activities within an organizationally complex project. The context of the research involved the transfer of rice production technology from China to Mozambique. The action research identified four categories of boundary within the project that were hindering performance: Intellectual/Land property rights; Public/Private sector logics; Inside/Outside programme; and Collaboration/Competition between programme actors. The process of co-inquiry with stakeholders enabled by the action research allowed programme actors to reach an understanding of others, and it created a new thinking space for mutual problem solving. By these means, the action research process makes a resource of the differences between stakeholders rather than it being seen as a barrier to be compromised through negotiation.},
	keywords = {action research, agricultural innovation, boundaries, international collaboration, technology transfer},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1230},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1230},
	author = {Armando Machevo Ussivane and Paul Ellwood}
}
@article {1203,
	title = {Exploring the Use of Stakeholder Analysis Methodology in the Establishment of a Living Lab},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {12/2018},
	pages = {26-39},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article explores how to conduct a cost-effective stakeholder analysis to investigate opportunities and interest in establishing a living lab for an autonomous ferry connection. Using an action research approach, we share our experiences with the process and results, and we reflect openly on the strengths and weaknesses of both the stakeholder methodology generally as well as our own implementation specifically. According to the cyclic nature of action research and experiential learning, the research was conducted in two iterations, with the second iteration drawing upon input from the first. We compare and discuss these two approaches in terms of costs and benefits from a practitioner{\textquoteright}s perspective. The article provides a contribution to stakeholder analysis methodology for complex, multi-stakeholder innovation initiatives, such as living labs.},
	keywords = {action research, autonomous vessels, living labs, management, maritime, Open innovation, quadruple helix, stakeholder analysis},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1203},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1203},
	author = {Marius Imset and Per Haavardtun and Marius Stian Tannum}
}
@article {1189,
	title = {Strategic Foresight of Future B2B Customer Opportunities through Machine Learning},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {10/2018},
	pages = {5-17},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Within the strategic foresight literature, customer foresight still shows a low capability level. In practice, especially in business-to-business (B2B) industries, analyzing an entire customer base in terms of future customer potential is often done manually. Therefore, we present a single case study based on a quantitative customer-foresight project conducted by a manufacturing company. Along with a common data mining process, we highlight the application of machine learning algorithms on an entire customer database that consists of customer and product-related data. The overall benefit of our research is threefold. The major result is a prioritization of 2,300 worldwide customers according to their predicted technical affinity and suitability for a new machine control sensor. Thus, the company gains market knowledge, which addresses management functions such as product management. Furthermore, we describe the necessary requirements and steps for practitioners who realize a customer-foresight project. Finally, we provide a detailed catalogue of measures suitable for sales in order to approach the identified high-potential customers according to their individual needs and behaviour. },
	keywords = {action research, B2B industries, customer base analysis, customer foresight, customer knowledge, customer profile, data mining, machine learning, strategic foresight},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1189},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1189},
	author = {Daniel Gentner and Birgit Stelzer and Bujar Ramosaj and Leo Brecht}
}
@article {1056,
	title = {Action Research as a Framework to Evaluate the Operations of a Living Lab},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {02/2017},
	pages = {35-41},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In this article, we propose an action research approach to capture and act upon the delights and frustrations of panel members who participate in living lab research in order to optimize the operations of the living lab itself. We used this approach to test the effectiveness of action research in providing guidelines to practitioners to evaluate and design effective and sustainable user involvement processes in living labs. We conducted a focused literature review and an in-depth case study of both the integration of a researcher within the community and the implementation of an action research project within an existing living lab. This living lab is regarded as both a forerunner and a best-practice example in Europe. Based on our findings, we recommend co-creating the {\textquotedblleft}operations{\textquotedblright} of a living lab with the users themselves following a combined action research and living lab approach.},
	keywords = {action research, Living lab, panel management, participatory action research, user research},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1056},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1056},
	author = {Sara Logghe and Dimitri Schuurman}
}
@article {1052,
	title = {Editorial: Innovation in Living Labs (February 2017)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {02/2017},
	pages = {3-6},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {action research, business-to-business, emotions, innovation, living labs, needsfinding, operations, reflection},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1052},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1052},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Seppo Leminen and Mika Westerlund and Dimitri Schuurman and Pieter Ballon}
}
@article {1055,
	title = {Reflecting on Actions in Living Lab Research},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {02/2017},
	pages = {27-34},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Living labs deploy contemporary open and user-centred engagement processes in real-world contexts where all relevant stakeholders are involved and engaged with the endeavour to create and experiment with different innovations. The approach is evidently successful and builds on the perspective that people have a democratic right to have influence over changes that might affect them, such as those brought about by an innovation. In this article, we will reflect on and discuss a case in which end users took part in the development of a method that stimulates learning and adoption of digital innovations in their own homes while testing and interacting with it. The results show that, when end users were stimulated to use the implemented innovation through different explicit assignments, they both increased their understanding of the situation as well as changed their behaviour. Living lab processes are complex and dynamic, and we find that it is essential that a living lab have the capability to adjust its roles and actions. We argue that being reflective is beneficial for innovation process managers in living labs because it allows them to adjust processes in response to dynamic circumstances. },
	keywords = {action research, Apollon, context, digital innovations, end users, innovation process, Living lab, research process},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1055},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1055},
	author = {Anna St{\r a}hlbr{\"o}st and Marita Holst}
}
@article {993,
	title = {All Australian Regions Are Not Born Equal: Understanding the Regional Innovation Management Sandpit},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {06/2016},
	pages = {11-23},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In this article, we highlight and challenge an overly simplistic assessment of regions and regional innovation systems in Australia. Treating each region and place as equal and prescribing blanket policy is anathema to the reality. Having argued that places are not equivalent, we then move on to highlight that commonalities at a deeper institutional level are possible. We draw on fieldwork and ongoing action research from the Australian regions of Hunter and Central Coast (New South Wales) and Northern Tasmania. Results of the theory and case work have been instrumental in the development of 11 structural attributes of a regional innovation management (RIM) sandpit framework. The framework provides attributes but also important process insights related to regional programs, enterprise development, and project innovations. Although developing from the Australian context, we expect that the RIM Sandpit and its place-based insights can be generalized to other regions around the world.},
	keywords = {action research, constructed advantage, phronesis, pivot, quadruple helix, regional innovation management sandpit, RIS3, smart specialization, strategic management, triple helix},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/993},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/993},
	author = {Anton Kriz and Courtney Molloy and Alexandra Kriz and Sabrina Sonntag}
}
@article {1029,
	title = {Editorial: Innovation in Tourism (November 2016)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {11/2016},
	pages = {3-5},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {action research, boundary objects, co-creation, crowdsourcing, innovation, living labs, smart cities, smart destinations, technology, tourism},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1029},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1029},
	author = {Chris McPhee and David Guimont and Dominic Lapointe}
}
@article {1031,
	title = {Empowering Local Tourism Providers to Innovate through a Living Lab Process: Does Scale Matter?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {11/2016},
	pages = {18-25},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {A destination management organization looking to integrate technology into its tourism offering tasked a living lab with engaging tourists and tourism providers in the process. At the end of the two-year initial funding period for an action research project, the process is a success and stakeholders are engaged in the innovation ecosystem. But what is next? By observing participants and gathering feedback from stakeholders through a Policy Delphi panel, the outcomes of the project and the intentions and actions of the tourism providers and other parties were identified. Innovation capacity has increased: spin-offs were created and stakeholders have embraced open and collaborative innovation. Now, stakeholders are determined to make the process sustainable by finding other funding sources. But what should be the level of cooperation and intervention? What level can best foster innovation and knowledge retention? A case study combining a grid of characteristics and levels of analysis for living labs was used to identify one key question: for a living lab in tourism, does scale matter? This article will explore that question and will contribute to the understanding of the living lab as a model of socio-territorial action.},
	keywords = {action research, destination management, innovation, level, living labs, scale, socio-territorial action, territoriality, tourism},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1031},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1031},
	author = {David Guimont and Dominic Lapointe}
}
