@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 {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} }