Livinglabs como modelos de innovación abierta.Análisis a partir del concepto de extitución

Referencias bibliográficas

• References Aceros, J. C., & Domènech, M. (2010). La mancomunidad de política hidrológica española. Sectores y trayectorias políticas en Internet. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, (132), 11–34.
• Aceros, J. C., & Domènech, M. (2011). The ‘New Water Culture’ on the Web: an issue network analysis. Regional Environmental Change, 11(4), 963–973.
• Aka, K. G. (2019). Actor-network theory to understand, track and succeed in a sustainable innovation development process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 225, 524–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.351
• Almirall, E., Lee, M., & Majchrzak, A. (2014). Open innovation requires integrated competition-community ecosystems: Lessons learned from civic open innovation. Business Horizons, 57(3), 391–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2013.12.009
• Álvarez-Aros, E. L., & Bernal-Torres, C. A. (2017). Modelo de Innovación Abierta: Énfasis en el Potencial Humano. Informacion Tecnologica, 28(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07642017000100007
• Angelini, L., Carrino, S., Abou Khaled, O., Riva-Mossman, S., & Mugellini, E. (2016). Senior Living Lab: an ecological approach to foster social innovation in an ageing society. Future Internet, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/fi8040050
• Aylen, J. (2010). Open versus closed innovation: Development of the wide strip mill for steel in the United States during the 1920s. R&D Management, 40(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00576.x
• Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Ihlström Eriksson, C., & Ståhlbröst, A. (2015). Places and spaces within Living Labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(12). https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview951
• Bilandzic, A., Foth, M., & Hearn, G. (2019). The role of Fab Labs and Living Labs for economic development of regional Australia . In A. van Luyn & E. de la Fuente (Eds.), Regional Cultures, Economies, and Creativity. London: Routledge.
• Bravo-Ibarra, E. R. (2020). Revisión sistemática del concepto de laboratorios vivos. Dimensión Empresarial, 12(1), 78–104.
• Callon, M. (1980). Struggles and Negotiations to Define What Is Problematic and What Is Not : the Socio-Logics of Translation. In K. Knorr, R. Krohn, & R. Whitley (Eds.), The Social Process of Scientific Investigation (pp. 197–220). Dordrecht: Reidel.
• Callon, M. (1984). Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32(1), 196–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.1984.tb00113.x
• Callon, M. (1987). Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hugues, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 83–103). Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world. An essay on technical democracy. London:The MIT Press.
• Callon, M., & Law, J. (1982). On interests and their transformation: Enrolment and counter-enrolment. Social Studies of Science, 12(4), 615–625.
• Callon, M., & Rabeharisoa, V. (2003). Research “‘in the wild’” and the shaping of new social identities. Technology in Society, 25, 193–204.
• Capdevila, I. (2019). Joining a collaborative space: is it really a better place to work? Journal of Business Strategy, 40(2), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-09-2017-0140
• Chesborough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Bussiness School Press.
• Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
• Choi, B. K., Yeo, W. D., & Won, D. K. (2018). The implication of ANT (Actor-Network-Theory) methodology for R&D policyin open innovation paradigm. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 16(3), 315–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2018.1471329
• Collet-Sabé, J. (2013). From total institution to extitution? Discussions on the future of monastic life in the Benedictine women’s monasteries of Catalonia (Spain). Revista Internacional de Sociología, 71(2), 335–356. https://doi.org/10.3989/ris.2011.05.11
• Coorevits, L., & Jacobs, A. (2017). Taking real-life seriously: An approach to decomposing context beyond “environment” in living labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(1), 26–36.
• 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
• de Magdala Pinto, M., & Pedruzzi Fonseca, L. (2013). Profundizando la comprensión de los Living Labs de Brasil. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad, 8(23), 231–247.
• Domènech, M., & Tirado, F. (1998). Sociología Simétrica: ensayos sobre ciencia, tecnología y sociedad. Barcelona: Gedisa.
• Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor–Network Theory in Education. Oxon: Routledge.
• Følstad, A. (2008). Living labs for innovation and development of information and communication technology: a literature review. Electronic Journal of Organizational Virtualness, 10, 99–131.
• Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish. The birth of the prison. New York: Pantheon.
• Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums (Anchor Books & Doubleday & Co., Eds.). New York.
• González-Sánchez, R., & García-Muiña, F. E. (2011). Innovación abierta: Un modelo preliminar desde la gestión del conocimiento. Intangible Capital, 7(1), 82–115. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2011.v7n1.p82-115
• Hancke, E., & Larsen, E. (2019). The problem of innovation. Copenhagen.
• Hennion, A. (2015). The passion for music. A sociology of mediation. Farnham: Ashgate.
• Hetland, P. (2011). Science 2.0: Bridging science and the public. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 6, 326–339.
• Hetland, P., & Mørch, A. I. (2016). Ethnography for Investigating the Internet. Seminar.Net, 12(1), 1–14.
• Hine, C. (2005). Virtual Methods. United Kingdom: Berg.
• Huizingh, E. K. R. E. (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
• Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244.
• Latour, B. (1983). Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. In K. Knorr-Cetina & M. Mulkay (Eds.), Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science (pp. 141–170). London: Sage.
• Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? Sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society. Studies in Sociotechnical Change (pp. 225–258). London: MIT Press.
• Latour, B. (1996). Aramis of the love of technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Latour, B. (1998). De la mediación técnica: Filosofía, sociología, genealogía. In M. Domènech & F. Tirado (Eds.), Sociología simétrica (pp. 249–302). Barcelona: Gedisa.
• Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Latour, B. (2017). Lecciones de sociología de las ciencias. Barcelona: Arpa.
• Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1995). La vida en el laboratorio. La construcción de los hechos científicos. Madrid: Alianza.
• Law, J. (2008). Actor-network theory and material semiotics. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), The new Blackwell Companion to social theory (pp. 141–158). London: Blackwell.
• Law, J., & Hassard, J. (1999). Actor Network Theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Leminen, S., Rajahonka, M., & Westerlund, M. (2017). Towards third-generation living lab networks in cities. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(11), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1118
• Lezaun, J. (2017). Actor-Network Theory. In C. Benzecry, M. Krause, & I. Reed (Eds.), Social theory now. The University of Chicago Press.
• Marone, L., Onofrio, R., & Masella, C. (2020). The Italian case of Lecco Innovation Living Lab: stakeholders’ needs and activities to contribute to the technological innovation process in healthcare. Sustainability, 12(24). https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410266
• Marres, N. (2002). May the victim of defacement stand up! On reading the network configurations of scandal on the Web. In B. Latour & P. Weibel (Eds.), Iconoclash: Beyond the Image Wars in Science, Religion and Art (pp. 486–489). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Martín-García, A. V., Gutiérrez-Pérez, B. M., & Aceros, J. C. (2021). Living Senior Labs, ecosistemas de co-creación e innovación abierta con personas mayores: revisión sistemática de la literatura en Ciencias Sociales. Interface, 25, e210399.
• Masseck, T. (2017). Living Labs in architecture as innovation arenas within higher education institutions. Energy Procedia, 115, 383–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.05.035
• Mendiola, I. (2016). El dispositivo de la captura: Espacios y cuerpos bajo el signo de la excepcionalidad. Athenea Digital,16(1), 83–111.
• Michael, M. (2017). Actor Network-Theory. Trials, trails and translations. London: Sage.
• Osorio, F., Dupont, L., Camargo, M., Palominos, P., Peña, J. I., & Alfaro, M. (2019). Design and management of innovation laboratories: Toward a performance assessment tool. Creativity and Innovation Management, 28(1), 82–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12301
• Ramírez, M.-S., & García-Peñalvo, F.-J. (2018). Co-creación e innovación abierta : Revisión sistemática de literatura. Comunicar, 54, 9–18. https://doi.org/10.3916/C54-2018-01
• Serres, M. (1994). El nacimiento de la física en el texto de Lucrecio. Valencia: Pre-textos.
• Spicer, A. (2010). Extitutions: The other side of institutions . Ephemera, 10(1), 25–39.
• Tirado, F., & Domènech, M. (2001). Extituciones: El poder y sus anatomías. Política y Sociedad, 36(2), 191–204.
• Tirado, F., & López, D. (2012). Teoría del Actor-Red. Más allá de los estudios de ciencia y tecnología. Barcelona: Amentia.
• Tirado, F., & Maureira, M. (2016). De Objetos y Extituciones: nuevos operadores de lo social . Oxímora, 8, 112–130.
• Tirado, F., & Mora, M. (2004). Cyborgs y extituciones. Nuevas formas para lo social. México: Universidad de Guadalajara.
• Trott, P., & Hartmann, D. (2009). Why “open innovation” is old wine in new bottles. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(04), 715–736. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919609002509
• Veeckman, C., Schuurman, D., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2013). Linking Living Lab characteristics and their outcomes: Towards a conceptual framework. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(12), 6–15.
• Venturini, T. (2009). Diving in magma: how to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 258–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509102694
• Venturini, T. (2012). Building on faults: How to represent controversies with digital methods. Public Understanding of Science, 21(7), 796–812. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510387558
• Verbeek, H., Zwakhalen, S. M. G., Schols, J. M. G. A., Kempen, G. I. J. M., & Hamers, J. P. H. (2020). The Living Lab in ageing and long-term care: a sustainable model for translational research improving quality of life, quality of care and quality of work. The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-019-1288-5
• Verloo, H. L. A., Gomes da Rocha, C., Amoussou, J. R., Gillès de Pélichy, E., Matos Queiros, A., Mendez Rubio, M., & von Gunten, A. (2020). A comprehensive scoping review protocol of using Living Labs to explore needs and solutions for older adults with dementia. Smart Homecare Technology and Telehealth, 7, 19–27.
• von Hippel, E. (2009). Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user innovation. International Journal of Innovation Science, 1(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1260/175722209787951224