%0 Journal Article %J Innovation: Organization & Management %D 2021 %T Examining Open Innovation in Science (OIS): What Open Innovation can and cannot offer the science of science %A Susanne Beck %A Marcel LaFlamme %A Carsten Bergenholtz %A Marcel Bogers %A Tiare-Maria Brasseur %A Marie-Louise Conradsen %A Kevin Crowston %A Diletta Di Marco %A Agnes Effert %A Despoina Filiou %A Lars Frederiksen %A Thomas Gillier %A Marc Gruber %A Carolin Haeussler %A Karin Hoisl %A Olga Kokshagina %A Maria-Theresa Norn %A Marion Poetz %A Gernot Pruschak %A Laia Pujol Priego %A Agnieszka Radziwon %A Alexander Ruser %A Henry Sauermann %A Sonali Shah %A Julia Suess-Reyes %A Christopher L. Tucci %A Philipp Tuertscher %A Jane Bjørn Vedel %A Roberto Verganti %A Jonathan Wareham %A Sunny Mosangzi Xu %X

Scholars across disciplines increasingly hear calls for more open and collaborative approaches to scientific research. The concept of Open Innovation in Science (OIS) provides a framework that integrates dispersed research efforts aiming to understand the antecedents, contingencies, and consequences of applying open and collaborative research practices. While the OIS framework has already been taken up by science of science scholars, its conceptual underpinnings require further specification. In this essay, we critically examine the OIS concept and bring to light two key aspects: 1) how OIS builds upon Open Innovation (OI) research by adopting its attention to boundary-crossing knowledge flows and by adapting other concepts developed and researched in OI to the science context as exemplified by two OIS cases in the area of research funding; 2) how OIS conceptualises knowledge flows across boundaries. While OI typically focuses on well-defined organizational boundaries, we argue that blurry and even invisible boundaries between communities of practice may more strongly constrain flows of knowledge related to openness and collaboration in science. Given the uptake of this concept, this essay brings needed clarity to the meaning of OIS, which has no particular normative orientation toward a close coupling between science and industry. We end by outlining the essay’s contributions to OI and the science of science, as well as to science practitioners.

%B Innovation: Organization & Management %G eng %R 10.1080/14479338.2021.1999248 %0 Report %D 2016 %T Manifesto on Engineering Academic Software (Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop 16252) %A Alice Allen %A Cecilia Aragon %A Christoph Becker %A Jeffrey Carver %A Andrei Chiş %A Benoit Combemale %A Mike Croucher %A Kevin Crowston %A Daniel Garijo %A Ashish Gehani %A Carole Goble %A Robert Haines %A Robert Hirschfeld %A James Howison %A Kathryn Huff %A Caroline Jay %A Daniel S. Katz %A Claude Kirchner %A Katie Kuksenok %A Ralf Lämmel %A Oscar Nierstrasz %A Matt Turk %A van Nieuwpoort, Rob %A Matthew Vaughn %A Jurgen Vinju %X Software is often a critical component of scientific research. It can be a component of the academic research methods used to produce research results, or it may itself be an academic research result. Software, however, has rarely been considered to be a citable artifact in its own right. With the advent of open-source software, artifact evaluation committees of conferences, and journals that include source code and running systems as part of the published artifacts, we foresee that software will increasingly be recognized as part of the academic process. The quality and sustainability of this software must be accounted for, both a priori and a posteriori. The Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop on “Engineering Academic Software” has examined the strengths, weaknesses, risks, and opportunities of academic software engineering. A key outcome of the workshop is this Dagstuhl Manifesto, serving as a roadmap towards future professional software engineering for software-based research instruments and other software produced and used in an academic context. The manifesto is expressed in terms of a series of actionable “pledges” that users and developers of academic research software can take as concrete steps towards improving the environment in which that software is produced. %B Dagstuhl Manifestos %I Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics %C Wadern, Germany %V 6 %8 12/2106 %G eng %N 1