@article {1134,
	title = {Editorial: Inclusive Innovation in Developed Countries (February 2018)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {02/2018},
	pages = {3-6},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {biotechnology, convergent innovation, food security, inclusive growth, inclusive innovation, maker spaces, Open innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1134},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1134},
	author = {Chris McPhee and R. Sandra Schillo and Louise Earl and Jeff Kinder}
}
@article {1148,
	title = {Frugal or Fair? The Unfulfilled Promises of Frugal Innovation},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {04/2018},
	pages = {6-13},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Frugal innovation has become a popular buzzword among management and business scholars. However, despite its popularity, I argue that the frugal innovation literature, in its present form, is problematic for at least two reasons. First, the frugal innovation literature assumes that scarcity is a normal condition of the {\textquotedblleft}Global South{\textquotedblright}. In this article, I show that this assumption neglects the fact that scarcity can be socially constructed to deny certain social sectors the access to resources essential for their flourishing. Second, despite all the good intentions underpinning the idea of {\textquotedblleft}alleviating poverty{\textquotedblright}, frugal innovation studies rarely challenge, or even discuss, the causes of destitution and social exclusion. Innovation, as well as technology, is overwhelmingly framed in an agnostic and neutral way that sidelines the socio-economic complexity of the exclusion mechanisms that cause poverty and underdevelopment. By ignoring this, the frugal innovation literature risks limiting the understanding of the problems it seeks to solve and, most importantly, it risks limiting its impact. Most frugal innovation literature, in other words, seems to elude the fact that, rather than being a mere lack of resources or technology, poverty is a matter of social justice. In order to be empowering, technology has to be value-based, normative framed, socially controlled, and democratically debated. In this article, I propose that we should use these principles to develop a new wave of frugal innovation literature and practice. },
	keywords = {frugal innovation, inclusive innovation, scarcity, social justice},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1148},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1148},
	author = {Mario Pansera}
}
@article {1137,
	title = {Inclusive Innovation in Biohacker Spaces: The Role of Systems and Networks},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {02/2018},
	pages = {27-37},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In this article, we examine the development of biohacker spaces and their impact on innovation systems through the lens of inclusive innovation. Examining issues associated with people, activities, outcomes, and governance, we observe that biohacker spaces offer an alternative approach to biotechnological research outside the orthodox walls of academia, industry, and government. We explain that harnessing the full innovative potential of these spaces depends on flexible legal and regulatory systems, including appropriate biosafety regulations and intellectual property policies and practices, and organic, community-based social and financial networking.},
	keywords = {biohacker spaces, biohacking, biotechnology, crowdfunding, inclusive innovation, innovation, law, regulation, social networks},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1137},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1137},
	author = {Jeremy de Beer and Vipal Jain}
}
@article {1086,
	title = {Editorial: 10th Anniversary Issue (July 2017)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {07/2017},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {ecosystems, entrepreneurship, inclusive innovation, India, knowledge commercialization, living labs, OSBR, TIM Review, topic modelling, universities, urban},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1086},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1086},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@article {1089,
	title = {Inclusive Innovation in Developed Countries: The Who, What, Why, and How},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {07/2017},
	pages = {34-46},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Although widely appreciated as an important driver of economic growth, innovation has also been established as a contributor to increasing economic and social inequalities. Such negative consequences are particularly obvious in the context of developing countries and extreme poverty, where innovation{\textquoteright}s contributions to inequalities are considered an issue of social and economic exclusion. In response, the concept of inclusive innovation has been developed to provide frameworks and action guidelines to measure and reduce the inequality-increasing effects of innovation. In developing countries, attention has only recently turned to the role of innovation in increasing inequalities, for example in the context of the degradation of employment in the transition from production to service industries. Although the focus of this early work is primarily on economic growth, innovation in developed countries also contributes to social exclusion, both of groups traditionally subject to social exclusion and new groups marginalized through arising innovations. This article summarizes the origins of the concept of inclusive innovation and proposes a four-dimensional framework for inclusive innovation in developed countries. Specifically, innovation needs to be inclusive in terms of people, activities, outcomes, and governance: i) individuals and groups participating in the innovation process at all levels; ii) the types of innovation activities considered; iii) the consideration of all positive and negative outcomes of innovation (including economic, social, and environmental); and iv) the governance of innovation systems. This framework is intended to guide policy development for inclusive innovation, as well as to encourage academics to investigate all dimensions of inclusive innovation in developed countries.},
	keywords = {developed countries, framework, inclusive innovation, inequality, social exclusion},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1089},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1089},
	author = {R. Sandra Schillo and Ryan M. Robinson}
}
