Co-creación e innovación abiertaRevisión sistemática de literatura

  1. María Soledad Ramírez-Montoya 1
  2. Franciso-José García-Peñalvo 2
  1. 1 Escuela de Humanidades y Educación del Tecnológico de Monterrey
  2. 2 Universidad de Salamanca
    info

    Universidad de Salamanca

    Salamanca, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02f40zc51

Revista:
Comunicar: Revista Científica de Comunicación y Educación

ISSN: 1134-3478

Año de publicación: 2018

Título del ejemplar: Ciencia y saber compartidos. Acceso abierto, tecnologías y educación

Número: 54

Páginas: 9-18

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.3916/C54-2018-01 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Comunicar: Revista Científica de Comunicación y Educación

Resumen

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.

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

Este trabajo está parcialmente financiado por CONACYT-SENER (México) a través del proyecto «Laboratorio Bi Nacional para la Gestión Inteligente de la Sustentabilidad Energética y Formación Tecnológica» (Ref. 266632), por el proyecto CONACYT-I0028-2016-04 (México) «Aumento de la visibilidad de RITEC mejorando la experiencia de usuario y su interoperabilidad con el Repositorio Nacional» (Ref. 280318) y por el Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (España), a través del proyecto «DEFINES» (Ref. TIN2016-80172-R).

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • 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
  • 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
  • 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). Link Google Scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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). Link Google Scholar
  • 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). Link Google Scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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). Link Google Scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • Hackseq Organizing Committee (2017). Hackseq: Catalyzing collaboration between biological and computational scientists via hackathon. F1000Research, 6, 10. https://doi.org/12688/f1000research.10964.1
  • Higgins, J.P., & Green, S. (Eds.) (2006). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.6. The Cochrane collaboration. (https://goo.gl/6uU6tM). Link Google Scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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). Link Google Scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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). Link Google Scholar
  • 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
  • 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). Link Google Scholar
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • National Knowledge Commission. (2007). Report to the Nation 2007. New Delhi: Government of India. (https://goo.gl/WbkkAE). Link Google Scholar
  • OECD (Ed.) (2012). Connected minds: Technology and today’s learners. Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264111011-en
  • 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). Link Google Scholar
  • 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
  • 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). Link Google Scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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). Link Google Scholar
  • 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). Link Google Scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Tripathi, S.S. (2016). Open innovation in Indian organizations: Types of collaboration. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(5), 15-23. (https://goo.gl/yqXrbb). Link Google Scholar
  • Tukiainen, T., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2015). Cities as collaborative innovation platforms. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(10), 16-23. (https:// goo.gl/UrrtGB). Link Google Scholar
  • UNESCO (Ed.) (2004). Ética de la Ciencia y la Tecnología. Contacto, XXIX(3-4). (https://goo.gl/FGvb8S). Link Google Scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Yun, J.J., Jeong, E., & Park, J. (2016). Network analysis of open innovation. Sustainability, 8(8), 729. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080729
  • 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
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet