@article {1270,
	title = {Editorial: Celebrating Innovation in Florence (October 2019)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {10/2019},
	pages = {3-4},
	chapter = {3},
	keywords = {behavioural economics, behavioural science, bibliometric analysis, business models, Buyer-Supplier Relationships, choice architecture, collaboration, consumer-to-business, Content creator-based business models, content creators, creativity management, digital platforms, digital technologies, digital transformation, Digital user involvement, digitalization, digitization, disruption, e-commerce, human-centered data economy, IIoT, Industry 4.0, innovation, innovation policy, intellectual commerce, Living lab, mission-led science, multisided platforms, personal data, research impact, social commerce, Supplier Integration, taxonomy, user-generated content},
	author = {Stoyan Tanev and Gregory Sandstrom}
}
@article {1275,
	title = {Giving Science Innovation Systems a {\textquoteright}Nudge{\textquoteright}},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {10/2019},
	pages = {51-61},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {51},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In this article we consider the role that contextual factors play in science innovation systems \&ndash; that is, the choice architecture, that influences the orientation and outcomes of publicly-funded research. More specifically, we examine how choice architects, particularly policymakers and funding administrators, can affect the decision-making behaviour of researchers. The context for today\&rsquo;s science innovation systems continues to shift as governments seek solutions to the world\&rsquo;s \&ldquo;grand societal challenges\&rdquo;, such as climate change and ageing populations, in addition to greater and more demonstrable impact from funded research. This means that the assumptions of \&ldquo;basic research [being] performed without thought of practical ends\&rdquo; (Bush, 1945) that have shaped such projects, actually run counter to the growing expectations of greater commercialisation and use of multidisciplinary mission-led approaches. We argue that a closer examination of the choice architecture for publicly-funded research is required to understand and address how these potentially conflicting objectives may be pursued most productively through interventions that could form the basis of a novel, behaviourally-based toolkit for science innovation policy.},
	keywords = {behavioural economics, behavioural science, choice architecture, innovation policy, mission-led science, research impact.},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1275},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1275},
	author = {Kirsty de Jong and Urs Daellenbach and Sally Davenport and Jarrod Haar and Shirley Leitch}
}
